Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Department of Culture, Media and Sport

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will no doubt be aware that, in recent days, we have had a succession of Ministers coming to the House to outline the spending plans for their Departments. Is it not a disgrace that, when it comes to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, what we get is an interview on the "Today" programme and a press conference in the National Gallery?
Given the wide-ranging structural changes that are proposed, including the dismantling of the Arts Council and the abolition of the English tourist board, and the fact that the statement has been awaited with great interest by many people across the country whose livelihoods will be affected by the changes, will you use your influence to recommend to the Secretary of State that he comes here forthwith to make an oral statement to the House and to answer some difficult questions on a contentious document?

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As vice-chairman of the all-party tourism group, I know that tourism and hospitality are responsible for creating more new jobs than any other industry. To sound the possible death knell of a strong, independent English tourist board to journalists rather than to the House leaves us in great difficulty when we want to represent the interests of our constituents.

Madam Speaker: As the House knows, Secretaries of State determine for themselves whether statements are made at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written question. If there is not to be a statement at the Dispatch Box, I should expect the Secretary of State to make a statement in the usual way, by means of a written answer, and to see that the supporting documentation is available to Members in the Vote Office. I know that those on the

Treasury Bench this morning will have noted my remarks, and I am sure that they will ensure that the proper procedures are now carried out.

PETITION

Acid Gas Escape (Killamarsh)

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Barnes: I wish to present a petition, which arises from two incidents in which highly dangerous clouds of acid gas escaped in Killamarsh in my constituency. Following the first incident, I made a speech in the House on the matter on 20 May, but I was prevented from seeking a speech on the second incident, as I was rushed into hospital with a stroke on 4 June. I am pleased to be able now to press my constituents' justified concerns with this petition. It reads:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of the residents of Killamarsh, N. E. Derbyshire
Declares that the siting of the Sarp UK plant (formerly Leigh Environmental) extremely close to centres of population—particularly two schools and a popular country park—is inherently dangerous. We call for its closure.
Until this can be achieved, the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Common

1. Introduce legislation requiring provision of an off-site safety plan to warn the community of dangerous incidents; an
2. urge the Minister for the Environment to:

a) refuse permission for any further developments or extensions of existing licences to Sarp UK or any other company operating on this site which may be requested of his Department;
b) instruct the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a complete safety review of the plant; and
c) instruct the Environment Agency to undertake constant monitoring of the operation of the plant, taking particular account of the gases and foul smells in the atmosphere regularly reported by residents, with a view to providing a complete cessation of these and the foul smells coming from the drains in the village
And the Petitioners remain, etc.




It is signed by Jane Holden of Nethermoor Lane, Killamarsh and 7,191 residents of the area. There are fewer people than that on the electoral register in Killamarsh, but we need to take into account the additional people living in the surrounding area.

To lie upon the Table.

Madam Speaker: It is good to see the hon. Member back.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [17 July] [Progress, 23 July].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 24

DATES OF ELECTIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in, page 13, line 4, leave out from 'If' to 'by' in line 12 and insert
'three months after either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister ceases to hold office the Assembly has not elected a First Minister or Deputy First Minister Her Majesty shall'.
The amendment is to some extent consequential to an amendment that we discussed yesterday. It concerns an issue that goes to the very heart of the concept of an Assembly that will sit for a fixed four-year term, unlike this House, which sits not for a fixed term but for a maximum period during which the Prime Minister may, at any time, seek a dissolution. The objection to clause 24(4) is that it undermines the basic concept of the fixed term that is proposed for the Assembly.
Subsection (4) says that the Assembly may be dissolved on three conditions. The third, which is particularly sweeping, is that
it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved".
Who is to consider that? The clause states that it will be Her Majesty, but, in practice, it will be the Secretary of State. A simple provision states that a body that is supposedly elected for a fixed four-year term may be dissolved if the Secretary of State believes that it is in the public interest.
That is contrary to the concept of the Assembly's existence and undermines the democratic process. It says to the electorate of Northern Ireland that although they may elect a body, the Secretary of State, who represents and is accountable to no one in Northern Ireland, may, if she considers it appropriate, turn out all its Members. That treats the electorate with contempt and disdain. I trust that it would never happen because no one would be foolish enough to do it. There is therefore no reason why the provision should be in the Bill.
Objection can also be made to the other grounds for dissolution set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The first is that
the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions".
That does not refer to issues of individual incapacity such as the First Minister being ill or unable to discharge his functions, in which case action could be taken. There is no such provision in the clause. We need only read the history books to see that there have been times when persons have occupied positions on the Treasury Benches and been incapable of discharging their functions for

various reasons, but we need not go into the details of that. One wonders what circumstances the draftsmen envisaged in which all Ministers, not only the First Minister, would be unable to carry out their functions and, as paragraph (b) states,
if they were to resign, the persons who would be likely to succeed them would not be able to carry out their functions".
Although the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are somewhat absurd, it is the provision in paragraph (c) which is fundamentally objectionable. It runs counter to the spirit of the Bill by demonstrating a degree of contempt for the electorate in Northern Ireland, and it undermines the concept of the Assembly as a body that operates for a fixed four-year term.
Hon. Members will remember that yesterday, when we were considering the provisions for the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the consequences of one or other resigning, I proposed an amendment providing for a three-month period subsequent to that resignation in which there would be an opportunity for re-election. We may argue about whether the period should be three months or less—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) suggested a seven-day period, which I thought too short—but we need to provide a period of between one week and three months in which the Assembly should try to re-elect First and Deputy First Ministers. If it were unable to do so during that period, that is the only case in which the Assembly should be dissolved before it had completed its four-year term.
9.45 am
The amendments that I have tabled would mean that either of the two largest parties would be able to bring about a dissolution of the Assembly if it were determined to do so, simply by arranging for its leader—the First or Deputy First Minister—to resign, not offering any candidate to be re-elected and using its votes to block the re-election of other persons. However, the procedure would be rather cumbersome and would take time, during which the party would have to justify its action, not only to the Assembly, but to the electorate. That is appropriate. It should not be easy for people to bring about the dissolution of a body that is elected for a fixed four-year term. Dissolution should certainly not be caused by the wave of a hand of someone who is not a Member of the Assembly, who is not elected in Northern Ireland and who is not answerable to its people. That is objectionable in principle.
I ask the Government to reconsider clause 24(4) and to consider the amendment, which would provide a procedure to bring about a dissolution while maintaining the integrity of the fixed-term concept by making it difficult to dissolve the Assembly. I point out that, in drafting the amendment, I omitted to provide for the deletion of subsection (5), which would not be appropriate if the amendment were made. We can consider that at a later stage.
My crucial point is that these provisions should be deleted because they are objectionable on democratic grounds and contrary to the concept of the scheme, but there may be circumstances in which a dissolution before the end of a four-year term would be appropriate. The amendment provides for that, but the procedure would not be easy to use because it should be biased in favour of


the Assembly serving its full fixed four-year term and dissolving before that only when it would be difficult, or almost impossible, for it to continue. It should not be easy to seek an early dissolution and it should certainly not be done on the ridiculous grounds set out in clause 24(4).

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I welcome the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) because it is interesting to debate the subject. I will not be supporting it, however, because—this is my central point—the clause provides a necessary reserved power. I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that using the provision would bring about a dissolution by the back door, but the sad fact is that if one wanted to dissolve the Assembly, there would be several ways of making it unworkable, as there are in any assembly. The history of Northern Ireland contains examples of assemblies which, through no one's fault, have proved difficult to work for various reasons. That is why the Bill contains the reserved power in clause 24(4).
The clause is not an attempt to undermine the democratic process. Everyone is trying to give Northern Ireland the maximum amount of representative democracy. This is a reserved power, exercisable through Her Majesty by the Secretary of State. As I have said in other discussions on the Bill, we must realise that we are dealing with the democratic process in Northern Ireland and at Westminster. In making the decision to dissolve, the Secretary of State would be answerable to this House.

Mr. Trimble: If it is necessary to have a reserved power in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast it with whatever reserved powers there might be in the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill? I do not believe that there is equivalent provision in either.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right. However, I believe that he has more cause than almost anyone in the Committee at the moment to appreciate and acknowledge the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is different. The history is different. The effort at devolution to Scotland and Wales is the first in modern times; the circumstances are totally different here, because this is not, by a long chalk, the first effort at devolution toward Northern Ireland. In view of the history and the circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying that the reserved power is necessary.
The reserved power deals with the plural—the whole cross-community concept. The power would be exercised if
the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions"—
plural—and the same for those who might succeed them. Part of the concept is the idea that, if one Minister cannot carry out his functions, it is likely that the other cannot carry out his either. That is how such a situation might come about.
In clause 24(4)(c) we have the saving grace—quite apart from the overall accountability to the House—that it is for the Secretary of State to gauge whether it is in the public interest for the Assembly to be dissolved. Then, far from doing a dreadful act to democracy, one goes to the people in order to elect a new Assembly; the democratic process takes over.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for drawing attention to the matter, but I do not believe that amendment No. 150 helps the Bill. It would merely prolong a situation which the Secretary of State must have the power to deem a crisis, in which she would accordingly dissolve the Assembly. If the amendment were passed, we would have three months' agony in such a situation: we would lose a very valuable part of the Bill.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made. I do not have clear in my mind the force of the distinction between subsections (3) and (4) of the clause. Amendment No. 150 deals specifically with subsection (4). We have been repeatedly told that the Bill must be in keeping with the spirit of the agreement, so it is interesting that a four-year term is not mentioned in the agreement. We have already stipulated a specific passage of time during which the Assembly should be operative.
I am puzzled; I do not see why subsection (4) is necessary. We are considering the concept of Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Secretary of State—but the Secretary of State already has the power to act by virtue of subsection (3).
Some people may think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was in dreamland when he tabled amendment No. 150. Some years ago, I visited Holland shortly before a general election. For six months, the two parties that had formed the coalition Government had been unable to come to terms to form a new Government. As I understand it, in such circumstances we would not be in a similar position to Holland, where the existing Government continued to exercise their power until the new Government were in place. We are contemplating a situation where, for whatever reason, the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other Northern Ireland Ministers were not prepared to work together. If that happened, Her Majesty should have a power by Order in Council to dissolve the Assembly to hold a fresh election after a specified period. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility—humans being what we are—that such a situation might arise. In fact, the Government were considering it. We are suggesting that their proposals are too cumbersome. Our amendment could help by making things easier and more straightforward.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I understand and sympathise with some of the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) too quickly dismissed those concerns.
I also say to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that, where possible, and always acknowledging the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, we should attempt to establish similarities in the legislation governing the new assemblies and parliaments that we are creating. He was right to question the difference between clause 24(4) and the provisions relating to a dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, extraordinary general elections are to be held where the Parliament so resolves and, on a Division, a majority of not less than two thirds of its Members votes that it should be dissolved. They are also to be held if the Parlliament does not nominate a First Minister during the period specified. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties are therefore entirely legitimate.
I should like to know the definition of "public interest" in clause 24(4)(c). Clause 24(4)(a) speaks of circumstances where
the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions".
Could such a situation be brought about by a vote of no confidence by two thirds of the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
I hope that the Minister will treat amendment No. 150 sympathetically. I did not hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann say that it was a probing amendment, but I believe that it is the type of amendment that should be treated with sympathy, especially when considered in relation to the Scottish legislation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What pressures would be placed on the Secretary of State to decide that it was in the public interest to dissolve the Assembly? We well know that, since the process that brought in the Irish Republic, the latter has had, and continues to have, a strong influence on what happens in Northern Ireland. If the Irish Republic said that it was not in the public interest for the Assembly to continue, I am sure that—judging by the past record—that view would be immediately accepted and the Assembly would be axed, because the pressures that have been exerted on Northern Ireland have been largely directed from the south of Ireland.
The same thing happened when the Stormont Parliament was first prorogued and then disbanded. We had the same agitation when other assemblies were put in its place, especially the most recent. It is a very serious thing, given that the Anglo-Irish Conference—which continues under the agreement, under another name—would continue to have a very big say in pressurising the Secretary of State to say that it was not in the public interest for the Assembly to continue. The public interest, to the Irish Republic, is its own parochial interest.
The Secretary of State is being given a very wide power indeed. The result of all that we have done in the House, and all the talks, can be taken away by a stroke of a pen, without any Member of the Assembly or Minister of the Assembly—even the First Minister or Deputy First Minister—having any say in the matter.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Question is—

Mr. John D. Taylor: rose—

The Chairman: It would be helpful if Members seeking to participate in the debate in the Committee could give a clear indication to the Chair. Otherwise, the Chair may assume that the debate has been completed.

Mr. Taylor: I would definitely have done so, Sir Alan, had it not occurred to me only two seconds ago that I wanted to speak.
I shall make two brief points. First, it seems amazing that, although the Government are not prepared to remove people from the Assembly Executive even though they belong to a political party that is inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation that is killing people on the

ground, they are prepared to take upon themselves the power to remove all Members of the Assembly. I do not follow that inconsistency.
Secondly, I share the fears expressed by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the Government will be influenced by the Dublin Government in deciding whether the Assembly should proceed. As a result of that influence, the Assembly could be closed—and there are precedents for that in the history of Northern Ireland. On numerous occasions in Committee, the Government have rejected amendments from the Ulster Unionist party or from Her Majesty's Opposition on the basis that they are inconsistent with the Stormont agreement. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening to this point. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the amendment is inconsistent with the Belfast agreement—because I believe that he certainly cannot do so in this case.

10 am

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): This has been an interesting short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) referred to the histories of past assemblies and similar bodies, and reflected on how it was important for Parliament to have the power to dissolve those bodies in the event of various crises. However, I believe that times have changed and that this agreement and this Northern Ireland Assembly will be more permanent.
We have consulted widely on this clause in recent days, and we have sympathy with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred to the Scottish comparison, which is a valid point. It is worth examining it so that we may determine whether there is a read-across from the Scottish to the Northern Ireland situation.
I think that we should re-examine the clause and the consequential amendments that would have to be made to other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that proponents of the amendment claim that the clause gives total, absolute and almost dictatorial powers to the Secretary of State? However, clause 24(5) states:
No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under subsection (4) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
That is surely a very strong and adequate democratic safeguard relating to the cause, reason and execution of such a proposal.

Mr. Murphy: In no sense is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a dictator and she, and anyone who succeeds her, will have to be accountable to the House of Commons and the other place.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The issue is surely the balance between the autonomy of the Northern Ireland Assembly versus the insurance policy of referring the decision to this Chamber and the other place. The real


concern is that the clause goes some way towards undermining the responsibility and trust invested in the Assembly to be able to manage its own affairs.

Mr. Murphy: This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, as such, authority ultimately rests here.
In terms of the Assembly's workability, we believe that we should plan not for failure but for success. We propose to re-examine the clause, consult in detail with the parties during August and September and refer the matter to the other place.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Parliament is sovereign anyway, and thus would be able to do what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggests. However, Northern Ireland representation in this place is very small, and Northern Ireland parties are not represented in the upper House. According to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP, it would not have any representatives in the other place. My party has never been represented there. Therefore, the House of Lords would not have a full complement of spokesmen to represent the people and put the views. The Assembly should at least—

Dr. Godman: Lord Paisley.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not think that that will ever happen—and I would not want it to. I would rather be in a place that has real power. Apparently the other place will be dehorned anyway—and does the hon. Gentleman think that I would offer my head for the chop? I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would make such a suggestion. I will allow him to take my seat.
It is important that the Assembly be allowed at least to express its feelings about the matter.

Mr. Murphy: That is why it is important to talk to the parties in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the four-year term. He is correct in saying that that is not in the agreement, although it was discussed during the negotiations and all parties agreed that a four-year term should be the norm. The poll may be shifted up to two months before or after it would otherwise be held in order to ensure that it could be held on the same day as other elections, where appropriate. For example, the Assembly election would coincide with local elections in Northern Ireland, which makes sense financially and would increase the voter turnout. Subsection (4)(c) enables a dissolution of the Assembly at any time during the four-year term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised several issues. There is no specific provision for votes of no confidence in the Administration rather than in Ministers or parties. We could consider a dissolution on a two-thirds majority—which would be comparable with the Scottish model, as my hon. Friend is aware. As elsewhere, the definition of public interest is in statute and it is not easy to define in abstract. They are just a few reasons why it is important to re-examine the issue, and I ask the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for his response and for his willingness to re-examine the matter. I am glad

that the Government have had second thoughts, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) for his comments about the desirability of having a read-across into the Northern Ireland institutions from the newly devolved institutions. I thank the Minister for taking that point on board.
It was also pleasant to hear the Minister make the simple but fundamental point—which has been sometimes lost sight of in the past few months through misinterpretation of the position—that Parliament remains sovereign and that, at the end of the day, power over all parts of the United Kingdom returns to the House. That point is made clear in clause 5(6). Therefore, those who are concerned about the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 can be reassured about the absolute sovereignty of the House.
That is also the answer for the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). If there is a need for a reserved power in order to act in an emergency, the Parliament has the capacity to do so and has no need of such a clause in this Bill. The one time that it was felt necessary to intervene in the terms that the hon. Gentleman described—I did not agree, but it was done—when the House decided in 1972 to prorogue and abolish the Northern Ireland Parliament, legislation was passed in the course of one day to give effect to that action. The point about the undiminished sovereignty of Parliament remains.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Under the terms of the agreement, Parliament and the British Government have agreed that, in the event of a simple majority of people wishing to leave the United Kingdom, there will be no claim of sovereignty—which is exactly what section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 declared.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. While the United Kingdom continues, the sovereignty of this House is undiminished. If part of the United Kingdom seceded, the situation would be different. The possibility of secession has been explicit in British constitutional legislation since 1921, so the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) does himself no credit by advancing arguments that are simply wrong in law. I shall not pursue the issue further at this stage.
I thank the Minister for his willingness to look again at the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

VACANCIES

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 14, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
'(2) Subject to subsection (2A) below an order under subsection (1) shall provide that where a seat was last filled by a member of a registered party, any vacancy shall be filled by another member nominated by that party (without a by-election).


(2A) Provided that where the condition mentioned in subsection (2) is not met, a vacancy shall be filled by—

(a) a by-election, or
(b) such other method as the Secretary of State may prescribe in the order.'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 151, in page 14, line 9, leave out 'or substitutes'.
No. 92, in page 14, line 10, leave out from 'substitutes' to end of line 11 and insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall also provide a scheme for updating and replacing substitutes.'.

Mr. Mackinlay: Amendment No. 100 would write into the Bill the requirement that, if a vacancy occurs in the Assembly's membership, the vacancy shall be filled by a member of the party that had ownership—if I may use that term—of the seat at the time of the Assembly election. The Bill leaves the method of filling the vacancy vague. It gives the Secretary of State the discretion to fill the vacancy in the way that I have just outlined, or to hold a by-election, or to use some other method.
Now that we have had considerable discussion of this Bill and the earlier Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill, it is time that we clarified how vacancies are to be filled. Vacancies will inevitably occur, and there must be clarity and precision on the matter now. In our discussions on the earlier Bill, the Minister implied that the Government would have resolved the matter by the time this Bill reached the House. I do not complain about the fact that they have not moved forward since then, but it is appropriate now that we resolve that vacancies shall automatically be filled by members of the same party as previously held the seat.
My amendment also provides for circumstances in which that condition cannot be fulfilled—for example, because the member was an independent. Only then would a by-election be the correct method of filling the vacancy. That is a common-sense approach.
In our earlier debates, we drew attention to the fact that, under the proposed electoral system, a perverse situation could arise where a member of the nationalist minority lost the seat in a constituency where there was a numerical majority for the Unionist persuasion. If a by-election were held, the Unionist persuasion would inevitably win, which would be a source of considerable irritation, and demonstrably unfair. The opposite could happen in a constituency with a nationalist majority, where someone of the Unionist persuasion might feel unfairly treated.
We used as an analogy the European Parliament seat of Northern Ireland. If, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) had sought the presidency of the Irish Republic and got it, there would have been a vacancy. If there had subsequently been a by-election for the European Parliament, the seat would have been won by someone of the Unionist persuasion. That is a matter of fact. The absence of a provision such as I am outlining would create enormous difficulties.
With respect to the Secretary of State, I believe that we must resolve the matter now, rather than some weeks or months down the road. Such a vacancy could occur at any time. Numbers are critical to all parties in the Assembly,

as we see from the complicated criteria for votes. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded that my amendment improves the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the elections were held, each candidate had to list in order a number of persons whom he would want to fill the seat if anything happened to him. What is the use of such a list, if there is no intention of using it? When I was fighting the election and I was asked who would get the seat if anything happened to me, I could refer to the list that I had drawn up.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is correct. One of the up-sides of the electoral system is that, if the amendment is adopted, it will be clear who the substitute, the suppliant or the alternative member will be. It is good for the electorate to understand that.
That is the principle envisaged for future European elections in England, Wales and Scotland. The same also applies, I think, to Northern Ireland, but I need to check that. At the next European parliamentary elections on a multi-member constituency basis, the intention is that there will not be by-elections. If a vacancy occurs, a replacement will be supplied from the existing ranking order of the party list. That seems sensible.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There was nothing in the legislation to deal with the Northern Ireland single transferable vote system. There would be by-elections. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this sense: if anything happened to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for example and a vacancy arose, there is no way, on an ordinary vote, that a member of the Unionist family would not take that seat. That is unfair. Under those circumstances, the seat should be retained by a member of the same party as held it previously. However, that was not touched on by the legislation that deals with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hesitated because I thought that, perversely, Northern Ireland was the exception in European Union legislation. I trespass on that merely to buttress my argument that England, Wales and Scotland will have the arrangements that I propose in my amendment. It is profoundly sensible and I hope that it commends itself to the Committee.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I concur with the call for clarification of the matter. The appropriate time for that was before the election to the Assembly, when the situation was extremely vague. The Secretary of State by an order brought into play the substitute system. Many of us would prefer by-elections, if a by-election could produce a fair result.
If the Assembly is to be frozen for four years, that ensures that no matter what changes take place in the community, the Assembly is cut off from them. If by-elections do not occur because of the substitute system, no account is taken of changes that occur democratically in society. That is one of the dangers of the proposed system.
If a party that was in the minority in a constituency lost the seat through resignation or by some other means, it would have little or no chance of winning it in a by-election, and would therefore be disadvantaged for the remainder of that term.
Alongside the amendment, we must consider our earlier discussion of the designation of political parties. I think that the Government should reconsider the provision.
Under the substitute system, the party did not have control of the substitutes: it was the candidate who had that control. Some put in more than others, but they were in complete control of who their substitutes were. Suppose that a candidate was elected as a Member representing one political party but transferred his allegiance to another. I am sure that he would wish to change his substitutes, who would be members of the party with which he had previously been aligned. There must be some provision for that, and such provision does not at present exist within the Secretary of State' s New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order. Amendment No. 92 is, to a large extent, a probing amendment to give those on the Government Front Bench the opportunity to say that the Secretary of State will modify the order to allow for the natural change that may take place over time.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the electorate should have some rights in these matters and that, if there is to be substitute provision, the names of those persons who are likely to be appointed should also be made known to the electorate at the time of the election?

Mr. Robinson: It is my recollection that the chief electoral officer indicated that the names of those persons would be available at the polling stations. However, when I went to vote I never saw any of the names of substitutes at the polling station. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the electorate have a right to know. It could be a circuitous route to get an unelectable individual into the Assembly. A popular person might stand with an unelectable individual as his substitute. He may be elected and then hand the seat over to that substitute. I suppose that that is possible. I agree that the electorate have the right to know.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Bill is turning back the tide of electoral reform to a pocket borough situation?

Mr. Robinson: Many arguments can be advanced against the substitute system, but I do not see a better option if we are to have a system that provides for multi-Member constituencies. In those circumstances, it is the best that can be made of the system. That is what makes me rather concerned about the option that the Secretary of State seems to leave open within the clause, which refers to
such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
It is my recollection that those words, or words similar to them, are in earlier legislation. Yet since then the Secretary of State has come down in favour of a substitute system, which is in play. However, the right hon. Lady still wants to maintain the option of changing the rules of the game somewhere down the line.
We either have by-elections or we have substitutes: an unknown alternative which the Secretary of State wants to keep close to her chest is unacceptable. That provision should be deleted so that we run with the two options

available to us, with the Secretary of State redefining the order to ensure that there can be updating. That updating does not take place simply because a Member has changed his party. A substitute may have died or may have made known their intention not to take up a seat. That would force us into by-elections unless those substitutes were replaced. For the good working of the Assembly, it is appropriate that the order should be updated to take into account the possibilities to which I have referred.

Dr. Godman: With your permission, Sir Alan, I shall speak to amendment No. 151. I shall not detain the Committee for long because there is little support for my views in this instance. My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) disagree utterly and completely with my view that vacancies should be filled only by way of by-elections. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out to me that substitutes are the case for local elections in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North reminded me that Norway and Sweden have provisions for substitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock reminded me, in a not very gentle way, that I had voted for a similar system for the European Parliament elections. Nevertheless, despite this inconsistency, my view is that, in an ideal world, vacancies in any sort of Assembly, whether local authority Assembly or Parliament, should be filled by way of a by-election.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked in an intervention, "What about the concerns of the electorate?" We have experienced in recent years in Scotland the disaffection of the electorate with the Labour party in by-elections. All parties suffer that fate; it is not peculiar to the Scottish Labour party. I acknowledge the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, but it is my view that we should aim for vacancies being filled eventually by by-elections. That is the position in the Irish Republic, which has a similar electoral system for its long-established Parliament. I would perhaps go along with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that there should just be the alternatives of substitutes or by-elections rather than the clause giving powers to the Secretary of State.
The helpful guidance notes state:
The thinking behind a system of substitutes is based on the impact of vacancies in a system combining election by a multi-member STV system and an Assembly based on the principles of proportionality.
I can understand that, but it still seems to me that we must take into consideration the views of the electorate. I correct slightly what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said about the Scottish system in comparison with what is proposed for Northern Ireland. I refer to the Scottish system in terms of comparative evidence. There is a different electoral system for our Scottish Parliament. Clause 8 of the Scotland Bill provides for constituency by-elections and clause 9 refers to
where the seat of a regional member is vacant.
My hon. Friend is correct to some extent because clause 9 provides that a vacancy in a regional Member seat that had been allocated to a registered political party will be filled by the nomination of another person from the same party list. However, that party list is known. That answers the concern that has been voiced in this context.


My only support comes from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is not in her place at the moment.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) sends her apologies to my hon. Friend. She has a meeting at the Scottish Office.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is appended to amendment No. 151.
It seems that I am perhaps being over-idealistic in advocating that vacancies should be filled only by by-elections. I am keenly aware of the social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, as an old-fashioned democrat, I believe that we should aim for a system whereby vacancies are filled only by by-elections. At the end of the day, we have to win the consent of the people whom we seek to govern.
From time to time, the local electorate may become disaffected with a party, its policies and practices. In between elections, the electorate should be given the right to demonstrate how they feel about a party. If, God forbid, there were to be a by-election shortly in Greenock and Inverclyde, it would be a by-election with a number of candidates representing different parties. That is the ideal for which we should aim in all assemblies—not just within the multinational state that we call the United Kingdom, but everywhere.
I make no apologies for detaining the Committee briefly, even though I know that I have no support from my hon. Friends. I have difficulties with the single transferable vote system. Even the Scottish system has difficulties, but it is a hell of a lot better than the system in Northern Ireland. The regional list of registered members of political parties will be known to the Scottish electorate. If there is a vacancy in a constituency where someone won under the first-past-the-post rules, there will, rightly and properly, be a by-election to fill that vacancy.
I stick to my guns, although I acknowledge the serious concerns of my hon. Friends at my advocacy of the system. However, one day, I hope that, in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, vacancies will be filled by the tried and trusted procedure of a by-election. That way, we meet four-square the concerns, expectations, needs and desires of the electorate. At the end of the day, the electorate must reign supreme over elections.

Mr. Öpik: This is something of a triumph for the Liberal Democrats. Just over a year ago, we had no proportional representation at all. Now it looks as if Britain will have every kind of PR we can think of. I thank the Government on behalf of my party.
It is necessary to have clarification now, rather than leaving the matter to a point when we are faced with a by-election. The more specific and objective that we can be about the rules, the less likely it will be that we shall have problems later. I was impressed by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), which tries to clarify the process, rather than leaving it to a decision as and when we need one.
Having said that, there are problems with any system that we propose. If we depend on substitutes, we are under an obligation to make sure that those substitutes are known. As with Scotland and Wales, it is clear that, in a regional list system, the substitutes should be clearly defined and advertised by the parties. My understanding is the same as that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—very few people, if anybody, knew who the substitutes were when the elections took place in Northern Ireland. Whatever else we do, we must make sure that that situation is amended for future elections.
The substitute system is not so much of a problem in Wales or Scotland because the system is rather different. In Wales and Scotland, the first-past-the-post system will be used for individual constituencies and the list system for regional constituencies. STV presents a rather different problem.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—not so much because of social or political concerns in Northern Ireland, but because of practical concerns about the spirit of proportional representation. That spirit would not be achieved if we simply had a by-election in the simplest form in a multi-seat constituency. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's intention, which is a form of democratic purism, but it would not be achieved by a by-election. An individual by-election—depending on how it is organized—is unlikely to uphold the principle of proportionality in a multi-seat constituency. I am sure that some colleagues could think of a formula that would correct that, but I shall leave that to the anoraks.

Dr. Godman: What I suggest is not in any way a panacea. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the Irish Republic not so long ago, the Irish Labour party won seats in by-elections in two constituencies, causing some difficulties for the Administration? There are difficulties with every kind of system. It might be democratic purism, but the concept of vacancies being filled by by-elections is long established.

Mr. Õpik: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and in fact Liberal Democrats tend to poll better in first-past-the-post by-elections to this Chamber. It is a workable system, and I have no objections to it in principle. I am looking at it from a practical consideration of proportionality. We have a difference in judgment. We could formulate a system of by-elections in Northern Ireland that would achieve everything that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde and the rest of us want—a fair system of filling vacancies that maintains the principle of proportionality. However, in my judgment, it is hard to see how that can happen, given the multi-seat STV process that we have in place. We must then add the secondary point of the political sensitivities in Northern Ireland, which are not quite so prevalent in, for example, the Republic of Ireland.
A system of by-elections could create problems, and we would have to be explicit about the terms. For example, the Winchester by-election was called because the original result was regarded as nullified or unsafe. The majority was two, and it was decided that more than two votes could not be reliably considered to have fallen one way or the other. If we followed the process recommended by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, we would have to be explicit about the context of the by-elections, and when they would be acceptable


or unacceptable. Needless to say, there could be a lot of acrimony in any such situation, and we would need to fall back on objective facts. The Winchester by-election involved a great deal of time in the courts. That could create even more frictions if it were to occur in Northern Ireland.
Ministers should consider seriously the clarifications that are being proposed. If we do not have a more objective system in the Bill, it will be a recipe for trouble. It is inevitable that, if a by-election is called and we do not have objective criteria, vested interests will cause acrimony and conflict. That may obscure the true intent of the by-election, which is to fill a vacancy in the Assembly. There is an urgency now, and I hope that we can receive objective clarification of how we proceed. We must not wait for the first by-election to become a hostage to fortune and descend into potential conflict of exactly the type that we are seeking to avoid.

Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Martin, for allowing me to participate in the debate.
The question before the Committee is how properly, adequately and continually to represent to the views of the electorate. For Northern Ireland, another overriding consideration is added to that: we desire an Administration who represent a deep cross-section of our community and a system which enables minority groupings to have political expression and representation. That is the basis on which we should be approaching the structures and the way in which people are elected to them.
We have not only proportional representation, which is the foundation of such a model, but six-member constituencies, which is a high number per constituency. The purpose is to ensure the maximum possible representation of a broad political spectrum. We should keep those two principles in mind, because they should be the yardstick by which we measure the filling of vacancies. Under PR, minority grouping representation could go out of the window in by-elections because, by the mathematics of the situation, the largest party in any constituency will inevitably win every by-election. In England, there may be a swing from one side to the other, but there have not been dramatic swings in Northern Ireland since it came into existence in 1920, so representation by minority groupings would be withdrawn from the electorate.
A Member may change party allegiance during his term of office. Notwithstanding that, the electorate would still have elected a person on a party ticket. If allegiance were transferred, that would be the fault of the representative, who would deny those who voted for him and for his party or philosophy.
On substitution, it is intriguing that participants in the Assembly elections were required in their nomination papers to nominate a maximum of six substitutes. As I recall, that was not a legal requirement, but it was a legal opportunity. The electorate could and should have made themselves aware of whether substitutes were of the same temperament or of the same political party or philosophy as the primary candidate. They made their decisions on the basis of candidates' nomination papers and their nominated substitutes, so what is the legal situation and what would it be if we made a change?
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that I have already reminded him of this practical point, but I must do so

again: in the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland, which are also elected by PR, it is the norm to fill a vacancy by substitution, through the nomination of the party whose representative previously occupied that elected position. Indeed, I can recall no recent by-elections. The community already accepts and operates—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. McGrady: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.

Dr. Godman: I think that I was first to ask.
I readily acknowledge that my hon. Friend presents a powerful case for substitutes, but does he agree with clause 27(2)? It states:
Such provision may be made by reference to by-elections or substitutes or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
Does he think that we should we have by-elections or substitutes, not a three-options system?

Mr. McGrady: I now give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Rev. Ian Paisley: Although such a system may be the norm, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be unanimity in the council chamber, and that, if anyone objects to not holding a by-election, he overrules the council? The hon. Gentleman will agree, because he has wide experience of local government, that holding an election, perhaps six months before the whole council went to the electorate, would throw the electorate into spending a lot of money.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful contribution, which is unusual in my experience. To take the point further, in multi-party council chambers, there is usually agreement across the parties that vacancies should be filled through substitution by the party that has a vacancy. That has been the norm in local government for about a decade; there is nothing unusual or unacceptable about it, and it has cross-party support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to clause 27(2). I probed this matter earlier; substitutes have already been nominated in the electoral process, and his question is difficult to answer because we need clarification of the legal situation. If the current legal position is to continue, how can we make changes midstream when the electorate have already cast their votes?
There is much validity in all the arguments about filling vacancies, but I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are basing our decision on the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. We are endeavouring to achieve the greatest participation by the greatest number of parties and philosophies. The tenor of the Bill is based on cross-community, cross-party support for the


way forward. In that context, substitution, as predicated by the electoral process, is probably best, although I hope that there will be evolution as time goes on.

Mr. McNamara: I thank you, Mr. Martin, for calling me to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), not after the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Õpik). I woke up this morning saying, "X is equal to minus B, plus or minus the square root of B squared, minus 4AC, all over 2A—or is it?" I did not want to go back to using squared paper.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's membership card is in the post.

Mr. McNamara: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman means a Mensa membership. I can remember mensa, mensam, mensae, mensa, but that is thanks to the Irish Christian Brothers, not the academicals attended by the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) demolished his own case. He considered all the examples and everything that had been said, and was left hanging on to the straw of what happens in the Irish Republic. There is considerable difference between what happens in the Irish Republic and what is happening in Northern Ireland. First, people in the Republic vote for a sovereign Government, not for a devolved Assembly. The second and more important difference is that, by and large, candidates in the Republic of Ireland accept the political institutions and the allegiances to, and sovereignty of, the state. That does not apply in Northern Ireland, and the agreement recognises that in its references to citizenship.
In our electoral system, parties divide on a class or ideological basis—if one is able to talk in those terms nowadays—and, especially in Northern Ireland, according to allegiances. The proportional system was introduced in Northern Ireland specifically to allow allegiances, and differences of opinion within those allegiances, to be adequately represented. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, if we change to a system of by-elections, the majority in a particular constituency could take the day. I shall refer only obliquely and briefly to last night's debate, Mr. Martin. If that were to happen, it would mean challenging the acceptance of the whole basis of the d'Hondt system.
That brings us back to the question whether a person in the new Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to cross the Floor, to change party or to change designation if that would upset the arrangements under which the elections took place. The electorate vote for candidates for a particular purpose. People vote for the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party or the Alliance party knowing where that party stands on constitutional, social, political and economic matters, and believing that, if the successful candidate died, someone from the list of substitutes would take that person's place on the basis of his allegiances and his known stance.
If we do not have substitutes and if we give the Secretary of State the discretion provided in the Bill—although she will have to bring the orders before the

House for resolution—we shall be leaving matters up in the air. The most sensible thing to do is for the Secretary of State to adopt the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock either in a new clause or a new schedule outlining the specific means of substitution. We should also specify what should happen if a person crosses the Floor or changes his political allegiance.
The position in Northern Ireland is different. People are elected not only for their innate qualities—I am sure that that applies to every Member of this august Assembly—but for their political allegiances and their understanding of how that can affect matters in the overall body of the Assembly. That is of the utmost importance.

Dr. Godman: I have never denied the strength of the case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I am sorry that my hon. Friend for Hull, North thinks that my view that the electorate should reign supreme hangs by a straw. I think that he was referring to the example, which I used to strengthen my case, of what happens in the Republic. Does my hon. Friend think that the reference to by-elections in clause 27(2) or the phrase
such other method of filling vacancies
should be deleted?

Mr. McNamara: I think that both should be deleted. I suggest that the Secretary of State, either in a new clause or in a new schedule—the latter is probably the best place—should outline the precise system and should say how substitution should be treated when a person crosses the floor. It is important that the electorate should not be misled. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that I do not believe that the people are sovereign. I hope that he will support my ten-minute Bill on Wednesday, which will show that the people are sovereign on membership of the House. However, we are talking about a devolved Assembly that will be elected, we hope, for a fixed period. People will know what is happening and will seek to ensure that their views are represented in a particular way. That is best achieved by a system of substitutes, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will table an amendment in the other place to meet the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has been interesting and useful. Schedule 14 to the Bill provides that the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998 remains in force after the appointed day. If a vacancy occurred, it would be filled by a substitute from the list submitted by a candidate at the 25 June elections.
Much of the debate has centred on the principle of substitutes versus by-elections. During the consideration of the previous Bill dealing with this matter, there was no doubt that a system of substitutes must inevitably be the one we use. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that, for the system of elections to the Assembly, there is no real alternative to the use of substitutes in order to maintain proportionality and the important cross-community aspects of the Assembly. The Government propose to ensure that the substitute system remains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock wanted more detail included in the Bill. His amendment refers to registered political parties. We shall see what impact the Registration of Political Parties Bill has on Northern Ireland. We shall have to consult political parties in Northern Ireland on that matter.
We can make any necessary changes to the system of substitution in future through an amendment to the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred. Under the provisions of schedule 14, that will continue to apply to elections to the Assembly. I propose to discuss this matter further with the parties, because I know that they regard it as an important issue. There is the matter of by-elections being held if substitutes die or do not wish to take up their place. We shall have further consultation on that. It may require changes, although not necessarily to the Bill.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister referred to by-elections and to the substitute system. What was in the Government's mind when they added the rider
or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit"?

Mr. Murphy: That is exactly why we need to consult further. It is unclear. We should consider how we deal with by-elections if a substitute does not want to take up his seat, dies or moves away. Because of the lack of clarity, we need to talk with parties in Northern Ireland. Changes could be made by order and not necessarily by amendments to the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Mackinlay: I hope to hear further news from the Minister over the summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

DISQUALIFICATION

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in clause 28, page 14, leave out lines 32 to 34.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in page 14, leave out lines 38 to 41.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The amendment deals with an interest that Northern Ireland and its people expressly have, in that Ministers of the Crown, as they may well be called under the new system, may also be nominated by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and take their seats in the Senate of the Irish Republic. It is not consistent that a Minister of the Crown in one part of the United Kingdom should take a seat in the Senate.

It being Eleven o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Orders of the Day — First World War (Executions)

11 am

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): With permission, I will make a statement about executions of soldiers and others in the first world war.
I doubt whether anyone who has not gone through the awesome experience of war can ever truly imagine its effects on the emotions of human beings. Some 9 million troops from all sides died during the great war. Almost 1 million British and Empire soldiers fell, heroes to their nations and a testimony to the awfulness of war.
We rightly remember them still, not only on the 11th of November, but in ceremonies throughout the year and throughout the globe. Today, I am sure that I am joined by the whole House in once again paying tribute to the courage and fortitude of all who served from throughout Britain and the Empire.
For some of our soldiers and their families, however, there has been neither glory nor remembrance. Just over 300 of them died at the hands not of the enemy, but of firing squads from their own side. They were shot at dawn, stigmatised and condemned—a few as cowards, most as deserters. The nature of those deaths and the circumstances surrounding them have long been a matter of contention. Therefore, last May, I said that we would look again at their cases.
The review has been a long and complicated process, and I have today placed a summary in the Library of the House. I will outline some salient features.
Between 4 August 1914 and 31 March 1920, approximately 20,000 personnel were convicted of military offences under the British Army Act for which the death penalty could have been awarded. That does not include civilian capital offences such as murder. Of those 20,000, something over 3,000 were actually sentenced to death. Approximately 90 per cent. of them escaped execution. They had their sentences commuted by their commanders in chief.
The remainder, those executed for a military offence, number some 306 cases in all. That is just 1 per cent. of those tried for a capital offence, and 10 per cent. of those actually sentenced to death. Those 300 or so cases can be examined, because the records were preserved. In virtually all other cases, the records were destroyed. It is the cases of those 300 that many hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and others outside the House, including the Royal British Legion, have asked us to reconsider with a view to some form of blanket pardon.
Let me make it plain that we cannot and do not condone cowardice, desertion, mutiny or assisting the enemy—then or now. They are all absolutely inimical to the very foundation of our armed forces. Without military discipline, the country could not be defended, and that is never more important than in times of war.
However, the circumstances of the first world war, and the long-standing controversy about the executions, justify particular consideration. We have therefore reviewed every aspect of the cases. We have considered the legal basis for the trials—field general courts martial. The review has confirmed that procedures for the courts martial were correct, given the law as it stood at the time.


The review also considered medical evidence. Clearly, if those who were executed could be medically examined now, it might be judged that the effects of their trauma meant that some should not have been considered culpable; but we cannot examine them now. We are left with only the records, and in most cases there is no implicit or explicit reference in the records to nervous, or other psychological or medical, disorders. Moreover, while it seems reasonable to assume that medical considerations may have been taken into account in the 90 per cent. of cases where sentences were commuted, there is no direct evidence of that, either, as almost all the records of those commuted cases have long since been destroyed.
However frustrating, the passage of time means that the grounds for a blanket legal pardon on the basis of unsafe conviction just do not exist. We have therefore considered the cases individually.
A legal pardon, as envisaged by some, could take one of three forms: a free pardon, a conditional pardon, or a statutory pardon. We have given very serious consideration to this matter. However, the three types of pardon have one thing in common—for each individual case, there must be some concrete evidence for overturning the decision of a legally constituted court, which was charged with examining the evidence in those serious offences.
I have personally examined one third of the records—approximately 100 personal case files. It was a deeply moving experience. Regrettably, many of the records contain little more than the minimum prescribed for this type of court martial—a form recording administrative details and a summary—not a transcript—of the evidence. Sometimes it amounts only to one or two handwritten pages.
I have accepted legal advice that, in the vast majority of cases, there is little to be gleaned from the fragments of the stories that would provide serious grounds for a legal pardon. Eighty years ago, when witnesses were available and the events were fresh in their memories, that might have been a possibility, but the passage of time has rendered it well-nigh impossible in most cases.
So, if we were to pursue the option of formal, legal pardons, the vast majority, if not all, of the cases would be left condemned either by an accident of history which has left us with insufficient evidence to make a judgment, or, even where the evidence is more extensive, by a lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the original verdicts. In short, most would be left condemned, or in some cases re-condemned, 80 years after the event.
I repeat here what I said last May when I announced the review—that we did not wish, by addressing one perceived injustice, to create another. I wish to be fair to all, and, for that reason I do not believe that pursuing possible individual formal legal pardons for a small number, on the basis of impressions from the surviving evidence, will best serve the purpose of justice or the sentiment of Parliament. The point is that now, 80 years after the events and on the basis of the evidence, we cannot distinguish between those who deliberately let down their country and their comrades in arms and those who were not guilty of desertion or cowardice.
Current knowledge of the psychological effects of war, for example, means that we now accept that some injustices may have occurred. Suspicions cannot be completely allayed by examination of the sparse records. We have therefore decided also to reject the option of those who have urged us to leave well alone and to say nothing. To do nothing, in the circumstances, would be neither compassionate nor humane.
Today, there are four things that we can do in this House, which sanctioned and passed the laws under which these men were executed. First, with the knowledge now available to us, we can express our deep sense of regret at the loss of life. There remain only a very few of our fellow countrymen who have any real understanding or memory of life and death in the trenches and on the battlefields of the first world war. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the war, and we are recalling and remembering the conditions of that war, and all those who endured them, both those who died at the hands of the enemy, and those who were executed. We remember, too, those who did their awful duty in the firing squads.
Secondly, in our regret, and as we approach a new century, let us remember that pardon implies more than legality and legal formality. Pardon involves understanding, forgiveness, tolerance and wisdom. I trust that hon. Members will agree that, while the passage of time has distanced us from the evidence and the possibility of distinguishing guilt from innocence, and has rendered the formality of pardon impossible, it has also cast great doubt on the stigma of condemnation.
If some men were found wanting, it was not because they all lacked courage, backbone or moral fibre. Among those executed were men who had bravely volunteered to serve their country. Many had given good and loyal service. In a sense, those who were executed were as much victims of the war as the soldiers and airmen who were killed in action, or who died of wounds or disease, like the civilians killed by aerial or naval bombardment, or like those who were lost at sea. As the 20th century draws to a close, they all deserve to have their sacrifice acknowledged afresh. I ask hon. Members to join me in recognising those who were executed for what they were—the victims, with millions of others, of a cataclysmic and ghastly war.
Thirdly, we hope that others outside the House will recognise all that, and that they will consider allowing the missing names to be added to books of remembrance and war memorials throughout the land.
Finally, there is one other thing that we can do as we look forward to a new millennium. The death penalty is still enshrined in our military law for five offences, including misconduct in action and mutiny. I can tell the House that Defence Ministers will invite Parliament to abolish the death penalty for military offences in the British armed forces in peace and in war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
There are deeply held feelings about the executions. Eighty years after those terrible events, we have tried to deal with a sensitive issue as fairly as possible for all those involved. In remembrance of those who died in the war, the poppy fields of Flanders became a symbol for the shattereds innocence and the shattered lives of a lost generation. May those who were executed, with the many, many others who were victims of war, finally rest in


peace. Let all of us who have inherited the world that followed remember with solemn gratitude, the sacrifices of those who served that we might live in peace.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I thank the Minister for generously allowing me a copy of his statement and the background information well in advance. He spoke with great understanding and sensitivity about a war that took place 80 years ago. There is probably no man or woman in the House whose father, grandfather or great-grandfather did not serve in the first world war. Many will have been wounded or killed. I was in the minority; both my grandfathers came back from the war. We should remember that a generation of Members of Parliament also served in that war, with great suffering. I think in particular of both the Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee and the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.
The British soldiers who were executed during that war have been subject to great debate over the past 80 years. The Minister rightly pointed out that there have been numerous internal and external Government inquiries. Before 1994, all Governments refused to release the case files and other documentation for public access, thereby creating a suspicion in some people's minds of a cover-up. I hope that the Minister's statement will leave no suspicion of a conspiracy or cover-up on a highly sensitive issue.
The matter has recently been brought to a head by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has pursued it since 1992 with early-day motions and a private Member's Bill. All hon. Members recognise the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter. In February 1993, when he was Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) rejected the hon. Gentleman's call for a pardon for those who were executed. Members who were here will recall that my right hon. Friend spoke with a great deal of sensitivity, advancing arguments similar to those of the Minister for the Armed Forces.
My right hon. Friend's Government's decision was based on a detailed, two-stage study of the files—first selective, then comprehensive—between 1992 and 1994 by the Army historical branch of the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to the men and women of that branch for their hard work in difficult circumstances. Their studies reached basically the same conclusions on legal and medical evidence that the Minister has outlined today.
On 16 September 1995, the office of the then Leader of the Opposition—now Prime Minister—announced that a future Labour Government would consider the matter sympathetically. The Minister, when in opposition, signed an early-day motion calling for a review. In May 1997, the Minister announced his review, and he has taken a personal interest in the matter, considering the cases himself and holding discussions with many legal and medical experts and historians.
The Minister's conclusions are virtually the same as those of the previous Government, but there are two differences. First, he has pushed for greater transparency. The previous Government began to move towards that, but he has continued it, and we should all welcome the move. Secondly, he has concluded, as he put to the House today, that, having reviewed the evidence, he faced three options. The first was a legal pardon, the second was the status quo and the third was an expression of regret.
Like previous Governments, the Minister has rejected the legal pardon. He finds the status quo unacceptable, and has opted for an expression of regret. I fear that the Minister may not satisfy two perhaps large groups of opinion. I may be assuming in advance the views of the hon. Member for Thurrock, who I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be lucky enough to catch your eye, but he has, of course, always argued for a pardon. Equally, there are those, including me and others, who believe that the status quo—leave history alone—is perhaps the option that we should still consider.
The status quo is not about indifference or callousness; I do not think that anyone who has looked at these questions can believe that. I have to declare a personal interest here: as a military historian 20 years ago, I interviewed dozens of surviving soldiers of the first world war on this issue and many others. There is a recognition of the impossibility of rewriting history. Among British soldiers at the time—I know that the Minister found this when he interviewed some of the very few surviving veterans—to say the least, there was an ambivalent attitude to the whole question of executing soldiers for desertion or mutiny.
Expressions of regret can become so generalised as to appear meaningless. I am not by any means implying that the Minister is trying to do that, but my fear is that we will end up setting a precedent. Last year, the Prime Minister expressed regret over the Irish potato famine, an action which many people agreed with. However, we have to consider: where does this begin and end?
I say in all seriousness: are we to consider giving expressions of regret for those people who were executed in the highlands after the battle of Culloden by forces of the Crown? Are we to express regret for those people who were executed by forces of the Crown after the Indian mutiny? Those are questions that involve our looking back into history and making value judgments. My fear is that the Minister's statement has not drawn a line under this issue.
Every hon. Member will stand in awe of those men and women who endured so much, so that we today can debate this issue. In particular, I stand in awe of all those hundreds of thousands of men and women who, in the face of the most appalling circumstances, controlled and conquered their fear and did their duty, so that we might live in a democracy, as we do today.

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) for what I think was a cautious, though at times cynical, welcome of the statement; perhaps I misinterpreted it. I join him in thanking the Army historical branch and the services for all their work. I want to put it on the record that, despite the rumours that accompany such reviews from time to time, there was no resistance whatever to a full and transparent, academic and compassionate review of these cases from the forces, which have been of immeasurable assistance to me in attempting, after all these years, to do justice to a complicated issue.
Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the sacrifices of all those who died, which I recognised at the top of my statement. We in the House owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to those who went over the top, fought in the battlefields and made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We promised at the end of that


awful war that, through the generations, we would not forget them, and we have not done so. Today we pay tribute to them as well.
However, I did point out that there were certain people—306 people—whose families had suffered a stigma for eight decades. I feel that, in the light of what we know, it was the view of the House as a whole that I was expressing when I said that that stigma should be lifted, and that those people should be recognised as victims. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
May I deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about not rewriting history? I did not use that expression—it was used by the previous Government—because I do not believe it. History has two meanings. One is what actually happened. Of course we cannot help what actually happened, or change it, but history has another meaning, which, as an historian, I recognise and which I thought that he, as an historian, would recognise as well. It is the interpretation of what happened.
In all fields of life, we constantly revise our interpretation of what happened. I argue, as a human being as well as a politician, and partly as an historian, that not only is it open to us to reinterpret the events, but, in a decent civilised society, we have an obligation to reinterpret those events. That is what have I tried to do.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned various other executions throughout history. I think that there is a difference. These events occurred within living memory—this century. I think that I am right in saying that, in the period before 1914, as far back as the Napoleonic wars, there were no more than two executions under these same Acts. From 1918 until today, I do not think that there have been any more than three. In the whole of the second world war, I think that there were three executions for mutiny and one for a capital offence which was not a military offence. Therefore, these events are specific—I think that they are ring-fenced. The conditions and nature of the first world war distinguish it from all other wars.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read of the awful conditions, the extremes of cold and heat, the mud, the vermin, the lice, the cacophony of shellfire, the amazing barrage under which human beings were put, whose batteries of courage were constantly being tested to the limit. The conditions of that war do make it somewhat different.
On the question of the individuals versus the group, I was asked to review these cases as a whole, and I have done so. I said, not only last May but in the debate in the House, which I have here, that that would not necessarily mean a legal formal pardon, but, where there are apparent or possible injustices within living memory, it is the obligation of Government, particularly when people were involved in a life-and-death struggle, to do their best to express the sentiment of the House and the will of the nation.
If I have one wish, it is that, whatever the legal formality today, we do indeed create the conditions in which, as a nation, we can say to all those who died, including the executed soldiers and others, "May you rest in peace now." May this case also rest in peace: after all

these decades, I believe that we have now finally done justice to the obligation to examine it and to dispense our view, and the public view, as fully as we possibly could.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose—

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mackinlay: I sincerely thank the Minister for all his efforts in this regard, the attention that he has given to this matter, and his statement today. I couple that with thanks for the work of many people, but particularly His Honour Judge Anthony Babington, Julian Putkowski, who did research work in this regard, which has assisted all of us and promoted our interest in this issue, and, last but not least, Ernest Thurthle, who was a Labour Member of Parliament in the 1920s and 1930s and who alone raised this issue. We should remember him today, because he did a great deal in exposing the fact that the British establishment suppressed these documents for three quarters of a century.
I hope that the Minister will understand if I reserve my position in one regard. I think that there could have been a formal legal pardon, but there may be a legislative opportunity for me or others to raise the matter in future. However, it would be churlish and unrealistic not to acknowledge that what the Minister has said is a major statement by the Government, which I deeply appreciate and which I know will be appreciated by the families of the men involved, the people who have campaigned for them and the few remaining veterans of the great war. They, late in the evening of life, will know that not only do the people support the pardons—I think that they have done so all along—but that Parliament has now reflected the fact that they should be acknowledged as victims of the great war along with the many other millions.
In response to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), there was not an option to leave the matter alone. That is precisely what the British establishment wanted to do for 75 years. History needs to be written with clarity and precision, and I hope that the Minister feels that, with his statement, he has written a chapter of history with clarity and precision this morning.
With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nudged me to draw attention to the fact that, at the very moment when the Minister was expressing regret, it was 11 minutes past 11. I thought that that added to a profoundly moving statement.
This certainly closes a chapter on a very unhappy episode. As we come to the end of a troubled century, when we teach our schoolchildren about the miscalculations and selfishness of politicians in general, we can at least take some pride this morning in the fact that the ordinary British soldier and the other victims of the great war have been given the long overdue acknowledgement that they were victims of the decisions of selfish people. I hope that we can salute them this morning.

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome and his kind words. I take this opportunity to thank Judge Anthony Babington, not only for his pioneering work in this generation but for the assistance that he gave me when I mets him. I also thank others, including


Julian Putkowski for assisting me to clarify my own thoughts on this matter. Of course, I did not meet Ernest Thurthle, but I became very familiar with his thoughts and works as I worked through the review. To that list I would add my hon. Friend himself, who has played a pioneering role in the last decade. He has taken an interest in all things military in the House, as well as in the soldiers and others who were executed.
There is not much that I can add, other than to say that, as I read the case files, I appreciated the nature of war. No one could remain unmoved who reads about the conditions endured by the soldiers who died in the first world war, who went over the top and made the sacrifice, and who had what Napoleon regarded as the main characteristic of a good soldier—not courage, but endurance. I certainly did not. Some of the words come back to haunt me. The last words of one young man who was executed were, "What will my mother say?" Such instances cannot leave us unmarked.
I do not believe that it is a sign of fortitude or strength to ignore compassion. Compassion, as exemplified by millions of soldiers throughout the centuries and throughout this nation, is an integral part of fortitude. We are all the stronger for having compassion—defiance in defeat, certainly, but, as Churchill once said, magnanimity in victory. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have the victory of life, and those who were fortunate enough, despite all their sacrifices, to come back, will share with the House the magnanimity and understanding of those who were executed during that terrible war.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), and thank the Minister for his courtesy in making this statement. I doubt whether a single hon. Member who heard the Minister's words could fail to be moved by what he had to say and the sincerity with which he said it. From the tone he used, I suspect that he was greatly disappointed in the words that he had to utter.
The statement contained the phrase that "formality of pardon" was impossible. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, when he replied to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), he used the words of compassion. I am sure that most men, women and children will think that compassion could have been shown to the 300 men and their families, and that the formality of pardon was not an impossibility. They will think that a society which, with the ability to look back and say that things would have been so different today, could have shown the compassion necessary to ensure that the pardon was not an impossibility. I am sure the Minister will agree that countless millions of people will not understand why it is impossible for the House to grant the pardon.
I am sure that every voice in the land will echo the sentiments that the Minister expressed in going over what these men went through. He recognised that the majority of them were volunteers and had been in action for a long time. He eloquently exposed the fear experienced by anyone placed in real danger, but these men were in danger day in and day out, week in and week out, for years in some instances.
The nation owes it to those men to show the compassion that is needed. Perhaps, just perhaps, some were guilty of the offences in question, but pardoning

them in order to pardon them all is a price that the nation would willingly pay in order, once and for all, to lift this stain from our nation's military history. I hope that, even now, the words of the hon. Member for Thurrock will be taken up by other hon. Members, and that we shall introduce legislation that will finally remove this stain from our history.
It gives me great pleasure on behalf of my party to thank the Minister for his honest endeavours and determination in bringing us to this stage today, but please do not let this be the end of the story.

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman raised three points to which I shall respond. To pardon a few, or one or two—I have not said that, in my view, the evidence would have been sufficient for such a pardon; it might have been sufficient to consider it—thus in effect condemning 300, or 290, would not have been the compassionate response.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: All or none.

Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend says, it is all or none.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) believes that some people will not understand. I think that they will understand perfectly, and I shall explain it in simple terms to the hon. Gentleman.
The people who died throughout this century in the British armed forces died fighting to preserve democracy. The basis of democracy is the rule of law. If any politician were to overturn not only several hundred years of precedent but the basis of that democracy by setting aside the belief that there has to be evidence for a conviction; or if he did so on a political whim or prejudice or on a suspicion, no matter how sincere, it would undermine the very basis of law and democracy for which so many millions have fought and died.
Therefore, I do not believe that it would have been open to me, without transgressing the very values for which so many service men have fought and died, to throw aside all legal precedent and make a judgment on the basis of what I believed rather than on the evidence. I think that that will be understood—it is understood in the House, and I think that it is understood across the country. But, short of that, I believe that I have done what the House would think is right.
The Government have not taken action and said what we said only because we thought that the House would think that it right to do so or because of this or that pressure group, but because we think it is the right thing to do. We have expressed regret and the view that—like all those who died—those people were victims of that terrible, terrible war. We have asked that the stigma of the executions be lifted and that those names be added to books of remembrance and memorials. We have also on this day announced that we will be inviting the House to abolish the death penalty. I think that those measures will be warmly welcomed by hon. Members and by the public.
I hope—for the benefit of the families and those who were executed—that we can now genuinely say, "Let them rest in peace". If individuals wish to petition on individual cases, I have not debarred anyone from doing so. My own belief is that they would not do a service for the whole or, I suspect, for the individual case—which, because of a lack of evidence, could end up with a


re-condemnation. Such an outcome is what I tried to avoid, and I think—and hope—that the generality of the statement of regret will be warmly welcomed by the public.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are considering a deeply moving matter, but the House will appreciate that I must protect the main business of the House. I shall call other hon. Members, but remind them that they must put a question to the Minister. That question should be brief. I shall try to call as many hon. Members as I can before we return to the main business of the House.

Mr. Tony Benn: May I join in thanking the Secretary of State—and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—for the very sensitive and imaginative way in which he has dealt with the matter? However, are we not speaking about a little bit more than the victims of war? Are we not speaking about the victims of the law, passed by Parliament, that conscripted young men and women who did not wish to fight and told them—under the then military code—"If you do not kill under orders, we will execute you"? They were victims of Parliament and of war, although the two were interconnected in that case. May I ask him also to recognise that the real victims today—for those who were shot have gone—are the families who have the anguish of knowing that their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and great-uncles died as convicted of cowardice?
In the light of Archbishop Tutu's institution of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to bring out the truth and allow the past to rest in peace, could not the word "pardon" be used to recognise that—for the benefit of the families—those people really were not guilty of the military offence for which they were sentenced to death? I ask the Secretary of State to consider that proposal in the light of the families who suffer, still to this day, for what happened to those who went before.

Dr. Reid: I thank my right hon. Friend, especially for referring to me as the Secretary of State—but the reshuffle is not until next week.
My right hon. Friend raised some very serious points. I did use the word "pardon"—I used it several times, both in my statement and subsequently—and explained that it is more than a legal formality: it also means compassion and forgiveness. I hope that that has been noted by the families themselves.
Many of those who were executed were not conscripts but volunteers. I specifically drew attention to that fact. I specifically drew attention also to the House's role, by saying that it was appropriate that the Government are making the statement in the House that sanctioned the legislation—the Army Act 1914—under which the people were executed. I made that point because, ultimately, responsibility rests in this place. It is therefore appropriate that we should have made our expression of regret here.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I join, on behalf of my colleagues, in thanking the Minister for his clear

statement and for underlining in his last reply the fact that many of those people were volunteers—among whom were the men of Ulster. I suggest that, in compassion, the House should reflect on the difference between calm debates in this place—where we sometimes use passion—and the battlefield. When we think of the victims of those days, perhaps we should remember that their officers also were victims, having to uphold military discipline in extreme circumstances. Does the Minister share my belief—it is also my plea—that those who have been so treated in the past will now be restored, even in books of remembrance and war memorials, so that, across the nation, no one may withhold recognition of the pardon that we are seeking to make?

Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman speaks for a part of the United Kingdom that suffered and sacrificed on a par with any in our history. Ulstermen stood in the vanguard of the efforts of the British armed forces in the first world war—not only at the Somme but at other horrific events in that war. It is not in my power to direct or to dictate, but I do hope that their names will be added to war memorials and books of remembrance, as that will be a symbol of the lifting of the stigma of execution.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the officers—some of whom, too, were executed. The sentences of 89 per cent. of those who were sentenced to death were commuted by the higher chain of command—which should give pause for thought to those who claim that executions were merely a rubber-stamp process performed by a bloodthirsty officer corps. That is not borne out by reality. Although evidence from the files is missing, there are sufficient grounds for us to believe that great consideration was given to executions, and that—despite the need for discipline and to ensure that, for the benefit of the many, there were executions when such offences occurred—a great deal of compassion was shown throughout the chain of command.

Mrs. Llin Golding: With one other hon. Member, I represent the House on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. As I walk up and down those rows of graves—many of 16, 17, 18, 19-year-olds—I try to imagine the horror that must have gone through their minds at what they saw. It is not surprising that many of them deserted. Perhaps many more did not do so only because they died so quickly that they did not have a chance to appreciate the situation from which they would never escape.
I thank the Minister for his statement. On behalf of all those who now rest in Commonwealth war graves, I ask him whether he will now write to other Commonwealth countries and ask them to include the names of the comrades of those who died in that dreadful war on war memorials and war graves.

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the work done by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Upkeep of those graves—particularly in France and Belgium, but elsewhere on the globe—is a tribute to the depth of feeling that we still have for all those who died in that war. She will know that no one who has walked through France and Belgium and seen the acres of white crosses around Arras, the Somme and the Ypres salient can come away without being profoundly affected by the experience.
As for the wider implications for the Commonwealth, I assure my hon. Friend that we have kept in touch with our Commonwealth colleagues as this issue has progressed. It is not within my power to direct other sovereign nations, but the remarks I have made today and the sentiments I have expressed were for all those who served in the British and Empire forces, and I have no doubt that they will be noted by our Commonwealth colleagues. I am sure that the whole House would welcome it if they decided that a similar course of action was appropriate in their case.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I, too, welcome today's statement by the Minister. I note the dignified manner in which he presented it, and the sombre mood in which the whole House has responded.
In thanking the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his tireless work on this case, may I say, also as an historian, that I do not believe that we can leave history alone? As an historian specialising in the history of the first world war, when teaching that history to youngsters who are far more accustomed to the virtual reality of Hollywood, I have discovered that the reality of man's inhumanity to man was something that they found extremely emotional. Perhaps in the process they recognised that we have to consider all our actions in society, and what they mean to all of us.
On the question of names being added to books of remembrance and war memorials, is it anticipated that that will happen by Remembrance Sunday this year? As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I am sure that the Minister will be keen to ensure that action is taken in respect of the Scottish national war memorial at Edinburgh castle.

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Lady. I cannot add anything to her comments about the first world war. The matter of war memorials and books of remembrance is not within my power to dictate, but I hope that the sentiments expressed in the House today are shared by those who do have power in such matters. I was pleased to read recently, as no doubt did the hon. Lady, that those responsible for the book of remembrance in Edinburgh castle have already decided to take action. I hope that their action is adopted as a more widespread practice.
I should add that, although we are concentrating on one aspect today, as I said in my statement and as I know the House feels, we remember and will never, ever forget the sacrifices made by those who died from the bullets or the bayonets of the enemy—those who found within themselves, in those awful conditions, the fortitude and courage to overcome fear, which afflicts all of us, and to go forward, sometimes into a hail of fire. We remember them today, as we shall on 11 November.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In welcoming my hon. Friend's statement, and acknowledging the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I should like also to recall the work of our former right hon. Friend and Member for Mansfield, Don Concannon. When he was first elected, he tried, desperately banging his head against the wall of the Ministry of Defence, to resurrect even the idea of re-examining these cases.
The most important and significant thing that my hon. Friend the Minister said today came in those few sentences at the end of his statement, when he ensured

that this would never happen again. May I say how much I welcome his statement that no longer will capital punishment be seen as a punishment within the British military code? By that decision, we shall never again make any of the sort of mistakes that may well have been made in the past.

Dr. Reid: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the endurance over a long period of Don Concannon, who, if I remember correctly, was a former guardsman and who took a great personal as well as academic interest in these matters.
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the abolition of the death penalty. Lest there be any doubt, let me make it plain that that has not been imposed on the armed forces; they have been working on this matter and have given it their full consideration, and they are at one with Ministers on that point—indeed, the recommendation came from the armed forces themselves. I am pleased to have been able to make that announcement today. It is appropriate in the context of the subject that we are discussing and hon. Members' interest in it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for his words today. This has been a moving time in the House. I thank him also for the tribute he paid to Ulstermen, especially those who fought at the battle of the Somme, after which there was hardly a home in the locality in which I work in which there were not victims. I thank him also for the way he put his remarks today; I want to assure him of that.
There is one note I want to strike—that it will appear strange to many people in Northern Ireland that the House can find a way to let terrorists out of prison by law, through a political act, whereas we cannot have a political pardon for the cases being discussed today. Why can there not be complete coverage, so that all can say that those men will rest in peace? I was touched when the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) spoke of the awesomeness of visiting the cemeteries, and by the Minister's words, echoing those of a victim: "What will my mother say?" I think that we will do good to everyone if we find a political way completely to lift the stigma through a pardon.

Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. He has, for many years now, been a staunch supporter of the idea of the rule of law, and I believe that, when he thinks the matter through, he will not want me to dispense with the rule of law in coming to a political judgment. There is a clear distinction between the expression of regret and the sentiments that we have expressed today, and anything that has ever been expressed in respect of those convicted of terrorist offences. In addition, those men have not been pardoned in any way. The comparison is not a fair one; nor do I believe that it is one which the House would want to pursue, because it is not in accord with the sentiments expressed today.
I have no difficulty in reiterating, and joining the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging, the vast sacrifices made by the men of Ulster—it was men—during the first world war. The loyalty they showed to the United Kingdom throughout that period should not and will not be forgotten. I am sure that it is at the back of our minds as we deal with contemporary developments, and that it


occasionally comes to the forefront of our minds when we consider the role of Ulster and the north of Ireland within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bill Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I share the view that none of us can understand the trauma that those soldiers experienced. I learned of that at second hand from my father when I was a child. He was in uniform throughout the war, and lost many of his comrades and two of his brothers. I am sure that, if he were alive today, he would be overjoyed by the statement. Will the Minister explain what communication will take place between his Department and the families concerned?

Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his words. The number of families that have been in correspondence with me is relatively small—only 12—and I am writing to them today enclosing a copy of the review and my statement to the House. I shall express the hope that, by extending our feelings of regret, by asking that the names be added to war memorials and books of remembrance, by recognising that those men were, like many others, the victims of a terrible war, and by announcing the abolition of the death penalty, we shave left to rest in peace the relatives about whom they feel so deeply, and lifted the stigma of execution.

Mr. Edward Garnier: With considerable diffidence, I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on his statement and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on raising the subject so forcefully over the past year or so. I use the word "diffidence", because, among hon. Members here this morning, only the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has served in the second world war. He may be the only person who understands to some extent what the soldiers we are discussing went through in the first world war.
I thank the Minister for recognising the context in which the executions took place: 20,000 people were convicted of offences for which they could have been sentenced to death, but only a tiny proportion of them received the death penalty. I congratulate the Minister on recognising that the command structure were not the brutish, thoughtless, careless creature that so many people think it was.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind what others at the time may have thought, rather than what we now think at this distance. I think of my grandfathers, both of whom were decorated in the first world war and returned wounded, and one of whom was a founder of the Royal
British Legion. I think also of my parents, one of whom has just, thanks to the Under-Secretary, received her war medals, and their contemporaries in the last war.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be brief.

Mr. Garnier: I shall be. Does not granting a pardon imply guilt of the offence for which someone is pardoned? Pardoning may therefore not be the answer that many people want. Will the legislation to remove the death penalty for military offences, to which the Minister referred, be a Government Bill and a discrete Bill dealing only with that measure, or a private Member's Bill for which the Government will give time?

Dr. Reid: I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a list of questions, and I shall answer a couple of them.
I made known my views on the chain of command. Like the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), I have spoken to several veterans. There are different views among those who served in the first world war, and I have tried to place them in context today. Without punishment of some nature for desertion, many more people might have died because of the collapse of military discipline. That certainly happened in the forces of some of our allies which did not use the death penalty.
It would be normal to use the Armed Forces Bill to abolish the death penalty. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that comes before the House every five years. That is when that provision will be incorporated into military law. It has not been used in peace for many years. We have said today that Defence Ministers will be inviting the House to decide that. As it is an issue of life and death, there will presumably be a free vote, although I cannot prejudge that. All Defence Ministers will certainly vote to abolish the death penalty, and will invite our colleagues to do so.
If legislation is required to sign protocol 6, which relates to the death penalty in peace or other than in war or the imminent threat of war, that will be introduced as an amendment to legislation that will introduced long before the Armed Forces Bill is introduced. That will allow us to ratify protocol 6.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

School Standards and Framework Act 1998
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Amendment proposed: No. 93, in clause 28, page 14, leave out lines 32 to 34.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When we were interrupted by the important announcement that has just been made, I was dealing with this matter as it relates to the views of many people in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members who do not know the constitution of the Irish Republic might like to know that there is a two-chamber system, made up of the Dail Eireann and the Senate. The Senate is a strange body, in that it is not purely elected. Many of its Members are nominated, and it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to fill many of its seats.
It has always been the custom and political strategy of the various Governments—especially when Fianna Fail has been in power—to put prominent people from Northern Ireland into the Senate. Some Members of Parliament, including nationalist Members of Parliament and various other prominent republicans, have been put into the Senate. The Deputy First Minister designate of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), was nominated to the Irish Senate, but he was then elected to an Assembly in Northern Ireland and was removed from the Assembly because he had disqualified himself by accepting the nomination to the Irish Senate.
We had a very short debate on that subject when we debated the first Assembly Bill that came before the House. In fact, shortage of time prevented the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh from explaining the position in which he found himself and the resultant expense that he was put to. He has said that he is grateful that, if a similar thing happened again, he would not have that problem. Perhaps, therefore, the Deputy First Minister designate has his eye on sitting in the Senate as well. That would not help the situation in Northern Ireland. Ministers and others must choose whether they want to sit in the Assembly or in the House of Commons as part of the United Kingdom, or whether they want to be a Member of a Parliament of another state.
That leads me to the question, who will be eligible to stand for election to the Assembly? I notice that the Bill deals with that matter in such a way that those from the Irish Republic can stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe that those matters should not be in the Bill. It should be made plain to those who wish to take part in the Assembly that they should not be permitted to be Members of a Parliament of another state.
It would also be wrong for a Minister of the Assembly to sit in the Senate of another state. The two roles are incompatible; such a thing should not happen. The House should realise that. I do not believe that the House would tolerate it if a Minister of the House were a Member of another Parliament, even of another European Union country.
I wonder why the Bill allows such a thing to happen. I am sure that the Prime Minister—whoever it may be—in Dublin is just waiting for the opportunity to make use of

the freedom that the Bill allows, because a Senate seat would be in the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. The House should make it clear that people should give their loyalty to one place, not to two states.

Mr. McNamara: This might be called the Seamus Mallon clause—and perhaps it should be in honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The important thing about the agreement and the feature that helps it to gel is the recognition of the legitimacy of both traditions within Northern Ireland. On constitutional issues, the agreement says that the parties will
recognise the birthright of all people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.
One wonders why the limitation applies only to the Senate of Northern Ireland and not also to its lower House. Any Irish citizen should be free to be elected to represent any area.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: May I finish my little story, and then I shall give way?
I am reminded of a similar situation when an Irish peer with a second subsidiary title came to Britain during the recent troubles and was stopped at the point of entry because he was holding an Irish passport. When asked what he was coming to this country to do, he replied, "To legislate for the likes of you". That may not have been the most polite reply, but it illustrates the free flow that has occurred between the various institutions and the elasticity of rules that apply everywhere in these islands except in the north of Ireland.
An Irish citizen may be elected to this place and to the Dail Eireann—there is no problem with that. Therefore, why should we not recognise and welcome the lifting of the partial ban because it embodies the spirit of the agreement? It also recognises the fact that, in the past, Irish and British men and women from both communities have been members of the Senate of the Irish Republic. For example, I refer hon. Members to the late Senator Gordon Wilson and Senator John Robb—people do not have to come from the nationalist community to serve in the Senate. We should welcome the fact that that generosity has existed and resent the tardiness that resulted in the problems faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. We should welcome the clause overwhelmingly.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I welcome very much the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I agree with every word he said. Although the entire Committee may not agree with him, I think that the vast majority of hon. Members do.
Clause 28(5) is a good provision and I hope that the Government will not give way on this point. As my hon. Friend said, it is a very useful clause. It also suits the philosophy of what we are endeavouring to achieve: a cross-community, co-operative view that recognises that


there is another side to the argument. It is in line also with the aims of the cross-border bodies to which I wish all health and strength.
Any loss of sovereignty is surely a matter for the Republic of Ireland. In response to the claim that its acceptance of people who are not technically its own is some sort of political strategy, all I can say is that people in the Republic of Ireland have been greatly reassured by that policy. My hon. Friend mentioned the late Senator Gordon Wilson, who was a great encouragement to the people of the Republic of Ireland in terms of their attitudes to Protestants in the north of Ireland. The policy was a triumph in encouraging everyone—including many hon. Members—who had anything to do with Ireland, north and south, to continue their efforts for peace when they were discouraged for various reasons. The measure is good for the Senate and for the Assembly.
We have an interesting example of the policy in action within this building. Ever since Irish independence, the House of Lords has contained a healthy number of Irish peers. There are a number of peers of Irish extraction, although of course they sit as United Kingdom peers. That is an excellent thing, and I am sure that members of the other place would agree. The old ones who remained after 1921 have all gone, but there are members of the House of Lords and those who aspire to membership of it who are resident in the Republic of Ireland now. The Earl of Mount Charles, whom some of us know, nearly ended up as Member of the Dail, when he could easily have been in the House of Lords were it not for his father's deserved longevity.
We are dealing with the understanding between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall speak to amendment No. 21, which is a probing amendment. It would delete subsection (7), which deals with the grounds for disqualifying a person from becoming a Member of the Assembly. The purpose of the amendment is to restrict membership of the Assembly to citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth.
Given the importance of the concept of devolution to Northern Ireland, as well as to Scotland and Wales, and the need to transfer the democratic deficit to local political input, it seems strange that, under those devolution powers, we should not restrict membership of such an Assembly to people who belong to that community, thereby giving it maximum input.
Subsection (7) qualifies the disqualification rules set out in section 3 of the Act of Settlement by inserting a condition that that would be negated if a person were a citizen of the European Union. Can the Minister tell us whether the proposed measure is unique to Northern Ireland? It does not seem to be contained in the original House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. It may have been added at a later date, subsequent to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, following the Maastricht treaty.
It would be helpful if the Minister gave the Committee some clarification of the matter, and also justified the notion of citizenship of the European Union in relation to the laws of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Öpik: I am concerned that amendment No. 93 would tie Northern Irish politics too closely to the Irish Parliament. It raises the status of a political position in the Republic of Ireland to rather more than just a job.
When we look at Northern Ireland politics under the current circumstances and in the foreseeable future, we should not ascribe more than the status of a job such as engineer to the simple act of being a Member of the Senate. Although it can be assumed that a Senator has important responsibilities in the Republic of Ireland, those responsibilities do not extend to Northern Ireland. We would give unnecessary status to the position of Irish Senator if we decided that that was grounds for exclusion from membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made some good points. It is up to Dublin to decide whether to have as Senators people who actively participate in Northern Ireland politics. It is up to us to decide whether we are happy with the individual's qualifications, but we should not go as far as deciding whether he is entitled to be a Member of the Assembly on the basis of what he does, if that is not directly related to the work of the United Kingdom Parliament or Northern Ireland politics. In that context, I think that the simplest approach is to regard eligibility to be a Member of the Dublin Parliament as unrelated to eligibility to be in the Northern Ireland Parliament. On that simple basis, I would be inclined not to agree to amendment No. 93. As for amendment No. 21, I, too, will be interested to hear the Minister's clarification of the issues that have been laid out.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): The amendments seek to remove the exemption from disqualification, first, of Members of the Irish Senate and, secondly, of citizens of other European Union states. I associate myself closely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). He referred to the late Senator Gordon Wilson, and I remember going to the late Senator's funeral. I found it a moving experience to be there with representatives from both north and south. Those present were, I suppose, expressing their appreciation of what Senator Wilson's life had meant. They were saying that what happened at Eniskillen was totally unacceptable both north and south of the border. The invitation to him to be a Member of the Irish Senate was a powerful expression of such sentiments.
The House of Commons has considered these matters recently. It had the opportunity to discuss the issues during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, which included identical provisions. It would be very much in conflict with that Act if we were to accept the amendment, which we shall not.
There have been many distinguished people from Northern Ireland who have sat in the Senate in the past. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)


referred on several occasions to what he saw as a conflict of interest between a Minister being in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Senate as well. However, the amendment is not about Ministers but about disqualification from membership of the Assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that if someone got into the Assembly who was a Member of the Senate he would be blocked, if he became a Minister, from continuing in the Senate? Surely the way into the Government is by election to the Assembly. If that gets someone into the Assembly and he becomes a Minister, there is no blockage set out in the Bill to keep him from being a Member of the Senate.

Mr. Worthington: I am simply addressing the amendment. The part of the clause that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove is one which permits someone who is a Member of the Irish Senate being also a Member of the Assembly. I was addressing the hon. Gentleman's debating point. He was referring to Ministers, rather than people wishing to be candidates for the Assembly.
Amendment No. 21 stands in the name of the official Opposition. The part of the clause to which it relates is about its being all right for citizens of other European states to be candidates. Subsection (7) is identical to the provisions that were accepted by the House of Commons in agreeing to the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. As it happens, that is in line with the law in Scotland as well. I think that that is the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
It is for the citizens of Northern Ireland to decide whether a particular citizen of another European Union state should represent them. We see no reason to exclude them. Accordingly, we would resist amendment No. 21 as well. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked specifically about provisions elsewhere. The provisions in the Bill are the same in this respect as those of the Scotland Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The way into office in the Northern Ireland Assembly is to get elected to the Assembly. A person can get elected to the Assembly and also be a Member of the Senate of the south of Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill to say that a Minister cannot be a Member of the Senate. Let us be clear. If he is a Member of the Assembly and is not disqualified, there is nothing in the Bill to say that he cannot continue to be a Member of the Senate, if that is his position. A Minister could, under the terms of the Bill, be a Member of the Senate.
On the subject of Dail Eireann, the person would have to be elected, and people in the south of Ireland do not look in too friendly a way on candidates from the north. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is popular in his constituency, but if he went across the border to Carlingford and stood for election to the Dail Eireann, I do not think that he would do well—even with all his great powers of oratory and influence.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, but I will be decent and give way to him in a minute, if he just holds on.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) came out with the outrageous remark that Irish peers still sit in the other place. They do not sit there as Irish peers—they sit there because they possess an English peerage.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I said that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman said that they were making a contribution to that House. That is the strangest thing—because someone originally had an Irish peerage, they can remain in that House. They are in that House because they are British peers. There are no Irish peers in the House of Lords. Talk about making bricks without straw—that is what the hon. Gentleman tried to do.
Mention was made of Gordon Wilson. He was not reached out to in the north to come down to the south. He was a southern man—he was brought up in the south. Let us get identities right. The Committee must get its facts right.
The Prime Minister of the south of Ireland can appoint various people to seats in the Senate. Under the Bill, he could now appoint the Deputy First Minister to a seat in the Senate. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) told us that this is probably the Mallon clause. I do not think that it should be in the Bill.
The Minister said that we have had time to discuss the matter. I refer him to Hansard, where he will see how much time we had. The debate came to an abrupt end when a vote was called.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for the graciousness and charm of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not reflect those virtues when he tried to intervene during my speech. First, the Irish peers sitting in the Lords with English titles were bribed with those English titles to get rid of the Irish Parliament in 1800 at the time of the Act of Union. That cost £24 million—a fair sum of money at the time. Secondly, I wish to make a more relevant point about people from the north being elected in the south. The President of the Republic of Ireland came from the north.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That might well be, but the President of the Republic is not a Member of Dail Eireann. I challenge members of the SDLP to fight seats in the south and see how they get on.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I never asked how those peers got into the House of Lords or what money they paid for their English titles. If that was the way in which they got into the other place, shame on them. The hon. Member for Leominster said that they made a great contribution. What contribution could they make if they got in by paying £300 for their title?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) want to withdraw his amendment?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No; we wish to shout no. [Laughter.]

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman wishes to shout no; I shall put the Question, then.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We wish to shout yes to the amendment, Mr. Martin.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye".

Rev. Ian Paisley: Aye.

The First Deputy Chairman: To the contrary, "No".

Hon. Members: No.

The First Deputy Chairman: I think the Noes have it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND PROVISION FOR RELIEF

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 15.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 30, page 15, leave out lines 30 to 33.

Mr. Moss: Amendment No. 22 is a probing amendment. It would delete subsections (2) and (3) of clause 29, which provides relief for those who may be disqualified from the Assembly. Amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 22.
Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 outlines the circumstances in which a person is disqualified from Assembly membership. Disqualification is based solely on an individual holding particular office in, for example, the judiciary, the armed forces, the police, the civil service, quangos of one kind or another and non-departmental public bodies. Clause 29(2) gives the Assembly power to lay an order to direct that the original grounds for disqualifying a person can be waived in certain circumstances.
Even assuming that that is an acceptable power to give to the Assembly, the Bill is not clear whether the order to offer relief would need a simple majority vote in the Assembly or whether such a decision would require cross-community support. As the Bill does not specifically mention the latter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that that does not apply. Assembly decisions on

individual cases could therefore be determined by the majority group of designated nationalists or designated Unionists. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
Much has been made of the fact that the Bill must faithfully interpret and reflect the Belfast agreement, but there does not appear to be a corresponding section offering guidance in this context. Paragraph 25 of the strand 1 section refers to the removal of an individual from office, but not to removal from membership of the Assembly, disqualification from standing for election or even disqualification from being able to sit as a Member of the Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will offer some illumination. Will he confirm that this issue is not covered by a corresponding part of the Belfast agreement? If so, why was it deemed either necessary or expedient, and by whom, to incorporate powers of waiver for the Assembly?
Clause 29(2) is taken almost verbatim from section 6(2) and (3) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which received Royal Assent on 8 May 1975—simultaneously with the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. The Northern Ireland Act does not contain such a section, despite both Acts presumably passing through the House contemporaneously. Why was the difference deemed to be appropriate then, but not now? Do we really want to give the Assembly such a power, especially as it will be administered—if that is the right word—by order, through secondary legislation?
We need the Minister to explain a number of matters.

>Mr. Worthington: These two amendments would remove the Assembly's power, in certain circumstances, to provide relief from disqualification. They would remove some flexibility. I note that the hon. Gentleman said that they were probing amendments. They apply to the fairly exotic circumstances in which people stand for election while disqualified and that is not made known before they get elected. That is unusual, and we believe that it is necessary to give the Assembly some flexibility. The election of such a candidate would be invalidated. People get annoyed—Winchester comes to mind—if they feel that their will has been thwarted through a technicality or for even more serious reasons.
This power allows the Assembly to set aside the disqualification. As the hon. Gentleman said, the disqualification is usually because the candidate holds a post or position that disqualifies him from being a representative in the Assembly. Candidates must put right the reason for which they were disqualified, so they would have to resign from their post. The cause of the disqualification would be removed, and the Assembly could set aside the disqualification if it so wished.
The hon. Gentleman said that a section of the community could vote, perhaps on a sectarian basis, for someone to be disqualified. Other Members of the Assembly would be free to challenge any such move, and the petition of concern is a further safeguard. If 30 Members of the Assembly feel that decisions should be made on a cross-party basis, they can cause that to occur. I think that that deals with the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The provisions reflect those that applied to the previous Assembly in Northern Ireland; which apply to the House of Commons; and which are in the Scotland Bill. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Can a candidate who is deemed to be disqualified, for whatever reason, from taking his place in the Assembly appeal against that disqualification under existing law? Why does it require the Assembly to lay an order? That allows the Assembly to decide whether the disqualification should be waived.
The Minister said that a similar measure applies to the House of Commons. As I said, it is contained in section 6 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Going through the House at the same time was the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, but this measure was not in that legislation. Do I understand from his final remarks that he is now saying that the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 has been amended to bring it into line with the measures applying to the House of Commons?

Mr. Worthington: I regret that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last point immediately. He raised the issue of an appeal against disqualification. Again, it is difficult to give an instant answer without knowing the grounds on which an appeal was being made. A person is disqualified from standing for the Assembly if he holds a particular position. That is usually a cut and dried case—either one holds a position or one does not. Obviously, there would be an appeal—to use the word loosely—within the Assembly by the Assembly Member concerned or his or her representatives when the Assembly could hear the case.
We are talking here about the Assembly's ability to set aside the disqualification if the grounds for disqualification have already been resolved. It would be against the law for a person to continue to hold a specified post and become a Member of the Assembly. Although it would be grounds for disqualification for a person to stand for election to the Assembly while holding such a post, if he or she had given up the post, the Assembly would have the power to set aside the disqualification that had previously applied. The hon. Gentleman may wish to enlighten me later, but it is difficult to think of other grounds for an appeal. There could not be an appeal in respect of the merits of holding the post. That is simply the law of the United Kingdom Parliament.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. It seems fairly obvious that the Assembly requires some flexibility, as the consequences of setting aside the results of an election on what may be a technicality or a post-holding issue that has been resolved by resignation are too serious to leave the Assembly without the power to set aside that disqualification.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister. When I spoke about an appeal, I was asking about an appeal by a person who has been disqualified in clause 29(2)(a) who feels
that the grounds of disqualification or alleged disqualification which subsisted or arose at the material time have been removed".
I wondered whether that would be possible without necessarily giving the Assembly the power to do that by order.
The Minister said that he would write to me or speak to me at a later date, but I am still puzzled why, if the provision is already incorporated in Northern Ireland statute, I could not find it in the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. It may have been added later, in which case it has simply been brought across and presumably will fall from the earlier legislation. I am quite happy to accept the Minister's statement that it already applies to Northern Ireland and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

COMMISSION

Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 32, page 16, line 37, at end insert—
'Such directions shall not be given without cross—community support.'.
Clause 32 deals with the Commission, which is akin to the shadow business committee that currently exists to deal with the day-to-day requirements of the shadow Assembly. Subsections (1) to (4) have been substantively dealt with by the creation of the shadow committee, of which the Commission will be the successor. The committee was created under the requirement of cross-community support, and my amendment to subsection (5) would mean that special directions or requirements given by the Assembly to the Commission in connection with its functions would also require cross-community support. It may be argued that the amendment should apply to all of clause 32. If so, I should be happy to hear the Minister accept it in those terms.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I support the amendment. The Assembly will give directions to the Commission, which will be the body on high for the whole operation. Most of clause 32 has to do with membership of the Commission, which is covered by other parts of the Bill. Subsection (5) is distinct in providing that
The Assembly may give special or general directions to the Commission for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise of the Commission's functions.
That goes very wide, and the Commission's role may be altered by it. There is a clear case for adding the safeguard suggested by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), which is provided in the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Öpik: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman judges the amendment to be a safety measure?

Mr. Temple-Morris: It is, and that is the spirit in which the hon. Member for South Down moved it.

Mr. Worthington: The amendment deals with the Commission that will provide the property, staff and services of the Assembly. Clause 32(5) empowers the Assembly to give special or general directions to the Commission in relation to its functions. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment supported by the hon.


Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). The Commission will be the servant of the Assembly, and should carry out its functions dispassionately.
However, the Bill already contains safeguards. A motion to give directions to the Commission could, for example, be subject to the petition of concern procedure, which would require a cross-community vote. Equally, the Assembly Standing Orders could ensure that there was cross-community support: we assume that the Standing Orders under clause 32(2) on the appointment of members of the Commission itself ensure that members are representative of the Assembly as a whole.
There could be ambiguity about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster referred to the mystical ways in which this place is run. I have never troubled myself with that, but one sees that it runs in a fair way. No doubt, directions are given all the time; one would not want to come to the House so that they could be given all-party support. It is necessary to delegate at times, but I believe that the safeguard is there in the petition of concern. The safeguard will be there in the terms of the membership of the commission.

Mr. McGrady: I hear what the Under-Secretary says regarding the various safeguards applying to many aspects of the running of the Assembly and the business committee, or, as it is called in the Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, but clause 32(5) gives the Assembly statutory authority to give any
special or general directions to the Commission
without cross-community support. As a layman, that is my interpretation of what clause 32(5) does. I urge him to give this matter further consideration, if necessary. The normal mechanisms that he has described, which apply to other aspects of the clause and other aspects of the management of the Assembly per se, have the same criteria for support—that is, cross-community support—that we had anticipated.

Mr. Worthington: If the Assembly looks like it is going to give, in a biased, partial way, special or general directions, that would, I assume from the Bill, have to come to the floor of the Assembly. It will then be open for people who object to the way in which the Commission is developing to have a petition of concern, and for 30 Members to say, "This should be on a cross-community basis." Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman seeks is there for the safeguarding of his Members or other Members.
I fear that if one said that everything that the Commission had to do in managing matters had to be on a cross-community basis, there would be an element of paralysis about it, but, if, at any time, Members were concerned about the way in which the Commission was developing, there are safeguards in the Standing Orders, in the membership of the Commission and through the petition of concern mechanism, to ensure that things are done through cross-community support.
We are listening to the whole debate. If there are any grounds for us to think that the safeguards in the Bill are inadequate—at the moment, I think that they are adequate—we shall contact the hon. Gentleman, or, if he

wants to flesh out what he is saying about his concerns, we shall look at the matter again. However, at the moment, I feel that what he wants is within the framework of the Bill and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. McGrady: In view of the Under-Secretary's last remarks and his very generous offer of reconsideration and, indeed, communication on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, leave out lines 32 to 36.
Clause 35 deals with Members' interests. The amendment would delete subsection (3), which deals with the power of the Assembly to establish Standing Orders that may prevent or restrict the participation of a Member with a registerable interest in a matter to which the Assembly's proceedings relate.
Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on to where the proposal in subsection (3) emanates from? It has certainly been incorporated in the Scotland Bill, which recently proceeded through the House, but I could not find an earlier reference in relation to Standing Orders for this Parliament.
The rules of this House have certainly been tightened in the year or so since the Nolan report, but, so I am led to understand by the Clerks of the House, we have nothing that goes so far as to prevent a Member from participating in our proceedings, save that a Member is not allowed to act as an advocate for a person or body for which he or she has a registerable interest.
Subsection (3) gives the Assembly wide-ranging powers to impose severe and possibly unacceptable conditions on its Members that could inhibit debate. Significant contributions can often be made by Members with expertise and a particular interest, registerable or otherwise, in a particular subject. So long as that interest is registered and declared at the appropriate time in the Assembly's proceedings, there is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained, by exercising tolerance and reasonableness.
Given the various other constraints placed on the operation of the Assembly, essentially through the separation of excepted and reserved matters from transferred matters, why should the Assembly be given powers that would work against the interests of openness and democracy in its proceedings? The amendment would remove the particular power from the Assembly to make such Standing Orders. In our submission, it would leave, in the remaining subsections of clause 35, considerable opportunities for the Assembly to make Standing Orders to regulate the participation of Members with a registerable interest. For example, subsection (4) deals


adequately with advocacy and the payment for initiating a cause in the Assembly, which are quite rightly to be prohibited.
Subsection (3) is superfluous to requirements. It is not to be found in the agreement. The amendment would help the proper and effective working of the Assembly by not placing unreasonable restrictions on the free speech afforded to its Members. That is a sentiment which I hope the Minister and the Government will find persuasive.

Mr. Öpik: I support the amendment, as the provision not only seems over-cautious but runs the risk of being manipulated in rather dubious ways.
I might be oversimplifying matters a little, but if one considers the operation of this Chamber, the fact is that, so long as an hon. Member declares an interest, he can participate meaningfully in a debate. Surely someone who declares an interest is more likely to want to participate in relevant debates, not always—or not usually—with evil intent. Moreover, if someone has declared an interest, is not he or she more likely to give an informed opinion and to know something about that issue?
I should much prefer to have a debate with people who have openly declared an interest and said why they wish to participate in a debate than with those who—although they may perhaps be able to be entirely dispassionate about it—may not have the matter at heart. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reassurances about why clause 34(3) has been included in the Bill.

1 pm

Mr. Worthington: We think that amendment No. 24 is a strange amendment, as it would remove the Assembly's power to provide in its Standing Orders for
preventing or restricting the participation in proceedings of…a member with a registerable interest…in a matter to which the proceedings relate.
The subsection is not telling the Assembly; it is giving it the power to include such a provision in its standing orders if it wishes to do so.
Clause 35(3) has to be read in conjunction with 35(2), which requires people to make a declaration of interest. That requirement is clear cut. However, clause 35(3) provides that the Assembly may—not "shall", which is always a point of confusion in legislation—take the power to decide that it is not sufficient for a Member simply to declare an interest, but that, in some particular instances, there should be extra powers to restrict a Member's participation.
There is nothing unusual about such a provision. As someone who moved from UK local government to UK central Government, I thought that it was very strange that all that was necessary to carry on speaking in this place was to declare an interest, whereas in local government one would not be allowed to speak in a debate or to be part of a committee that was considering a matter in which one had a declared interest. One would not be allowed even to be in the room when a decision was made on the matter.
We think that, in the majority of cases, it will be sufficient simply to require Members to declare an interest. However, in other cases, it may be appropriate for a Member to be prevented from voting on a matter in which he or she has a close interest. Although I do not

want to deal with too many speculative issues, one might wish, for example, to give to the Assembly the power to introduce Standing Orders that, in some circumstances, would prevent a Member voting on an issue in which he or she has a significant financial interest—just as happens in local government.

Mr. David Winnick: As my hon. Friend said, is not "may" the operative word and the essential point? In most cases, a financial interest will be registered if there is one, and there will be no prohibition on a person speaking. However, if an interest, for example a contract, is so blatant or commercial, such a safeguard is reasonable and wise—especially in the post-Nolan world, and bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments on local government—but is likely to be used only very rarely.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for that intervention, which very much made the point that I wanted to make. We are saying not that such a provision has to be made, but that it will be for the judgment of the Assembly to decide the matter in formulating its Standing Orders. It can include the provision in its Standing Orders if it so wishes. We believe that it must be right to enable the Assembly to restrict or prevent in certain circumstances the participation of Members from proceedings in which they may have an interest. We think that that will add very considerably to the Assembly's credibility and openness.

Mr. William Ross: May I draw the Minister's attention to the largest industry in Northern Ireland, agriculture? A number of Members of the Assembly have agricultural interests, which are naturally financial interests. If they—the representatives of that section of the Northern Ireland community—were prevented from participating, the result might be extremely skewed decisions, because those decisions would have been taken by people who did not have a financial interest. It is for that reason that I tend to agree with the amendment rather than with the Minister.

Mr. Worthington: My point is that we should give the Assembly the power to exercise its own good sense in respect of its Standing Orders relating to what is an interest, the level of interest that should be declared and what action is to be taken. I have no problem whatsoever with the proposition that those involved in agriculture should defend the interests of agriculture; their expertise is perfectly acceptable and should be used by the Assembly. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be quite inappropriate for someone who would personally benefit financially from a decision of the Assembly—someone whose farm would benefit specifically—to be required only to declare an interest. The Assembly might regard that as an inadequate disqualification of a person from participation in making decisions on that matter.
The matter is for the Assembly to decide in its Standing Orders relating to the declaration of interests and the role to be played by special interests within the Assembly. We should give the Assembly the power to draw up Standing Orders that enhance the standing of the Assembly in the


eyes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we are giving the Assembly that power, which is a sensible power.

Mr. Moss: The Minister still has not answered the question that I put to him. Where does the clause come from? He has not told the Committee whether it appears in legislation pertaining to the proceedings of the House. He referred to local authority standing orders, so the provision might well have been lifted from local government legislation.
Notwithstanding the support that we would give to proper constraints relating to Members' interests in the operation of the Assembly, as I have said, we believe that there are adequate safeguards in clause 35. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that there should be proper safeguards. The clause uses the word "may", but we would conclude that there are sufficient safeguards already in clause 35. For example, subsection (4) states:
Standing orders shall
—not may—
include provision prohibiting a member of the Assembly from…advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person",
or, indeed, on behalf of his or herself, no doubt,
by any means specified in standing orders, in consideration of any payment or benefit in kind".
I should have thought that that was a catch-all provision and that subsection (3) was therefore pretty irrelevant.

Mr. Worthington: On the question of where the provision comes from, the situation has been evolving since Nolan, so I cannot say that it is a straight copy from any specific legislation relating to the House. We are making proposals that seem appropriate to the new post-Nolan position. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter is not covered in the agreement, but we could not, in those miraculous few days, expect the agreement to cover all such issues.
However, I am sure that it is obvious to everyone that there should be a provision in the Northern Ireland Bill that sets up the Assembly covering the matter of Members' interests. We have simply put forward the proposition that, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, there should be a discretionary power for the Standing Orders of the Assembly to allow a ruling to be made as to whether, in some circumstances, the body needs to go beyond what exists in other respects. I am told that the provisions in the Scotland Bill are the same, almost word for word, and give flexibility to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Winnick: I do not want to be controversial at this time of the afternoon. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend agrees with me, but it would not be a bad idea if we introduced the same Standing Orders in the House of Commons.

Mr. Worthington: It is interesting to hear what is in my hon. Friend's mind at this time on a Friday afternoon.
The provision is sensible and it will be up to the good sense of the Assembly to decide how to use it, if it wishes to do so.

Mr. Moss: Obviously, there must be adequate safeguards in the Assembly to deal with Members'

interests. No one is suggesting that that should not be the case, but this may be a safeguard too far. We are in danger of over-legislating, and there are plenty of other adequate provisions in clause 35 to deal with Members with registrable interests.
It is interesting to hear the Minister admit that it is all right to add to the agreement, but not to detract from it. The Bill makes many additions to the agreement, which was presumably cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai.
As this point may be revisited in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 36 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: TAXES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I have received representations about clause 45, including representations from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that there needs to be consistency between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on these matters. Although I recommend that the Committee supports the clause, we may return to this matter on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 46, page 23, line 20, at end add—
'( ) Subject to subsection ( ) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year.
( ) No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.'.
I welcome the Minister of State's remarks about clause 45. Clauses 45 and 46 are as important as many others in the Bill. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to have its own Consolidated Fund, although clause 61 of the Scotland Bill will set up such a fund for Scotland. The Province has always been subject to the same taxes as the rest of the country, which are collected by UK Departments. Its share of those taxes and any other revenue collected in Northern Ireland is paid into its Consolidated Fund. Parliament then adds a further amount—the so-called subvention—to that fund each year. That consists, first, of an automatic increase, calculated under the Barnett formula and, secondly, of an additional payment negotiated in each year's spending round.
Under the Barnett formula, any change in spending in Great Britain is also applied to Northern Ireland, but scaled down to reflect the Province's smaller population. That means that if spending on relevant Great Britain


programmes is raised or cut by £100 million, funding for Northern Ireland increases or decreases by about £2.91 million.
That figure is now adjusted annually to take account of population changes. I believe that the figure for last year was £2.87 million. The Minister, who is responsible for finance, will no doubt confirm that. The Barnett formula determines only the annual change in funding for Northern Ireland, not the baseline figure. Moreover, as the change is based on levels of expenditure in Great Britain, it does not even work to maintain higher per capita spending in the Province. Indeed, if an increasing amount of the Province's funding is based on the lower level of spending in Great Britain, the gap narrows.
1.15 pm
That has not happened in practice because, for some time, every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has always secured an additional payment for the Province. However, it may be more difficult for Secretaries of State to do so after devolution, because the Bill says only that
The Secretary of State may from time to time make payments into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland out of money provided by Parliament.
Amendment No. 26 would add the following:
Subject to subsection ( ) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year.
The Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill say "shall"—not "may", the word used in the Bill before us. The second part of our amendment reads:
No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.
In short, we believe that the amendment guarantees that the Province will continue to get the funding that it needs, based on an accurate assessment of those needs in relation to spending in the United Kingdom as a whole.
No Minister in Northern Ireland, and I expect no Ministers of the Assembly, as and when it starts to do its work, would want a situation to arise where the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland are left waiting for the crumbs from the Treasury table, unable to question whether the money paid into that Consolidated Fund, plus any extra moneys, is related specifically to the unique needs of Northern Ireland, which have been recognised by every Government and Secretary of State since direct rule.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The amendment suggests that money to supplement the Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland may be given without proper consideration to the balance of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom. That is not the case; it is given on the same basis as money in any other part of the country. It is unusual only in being identified in statute. In Scotland, by comparison, there is no division into attributable and non-attributable payments. The Northern Ireland subvention is properly authorised annually by Parliament in the United Kingdom, in a process which, of course, takes account of the financial requirements of all parts of the United Kingdom.
The changes proposed are unnecessary. The existing funding mechanism enables the comparison to be made—which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned—between the needs of Northern

Ireland and those of the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that it reflects population and needs, as in the case of the other regions and countries of the UK, and I do not believe that we should single out Northern Ireland in the way that the amendment proposes.
As I said earlier, there is force in the argument that the arrangements in clause 45 for attributing a share of taxation to Northern Ireland are wrong. That is why I spoke briefly a moment ago. It is only right that we should be concerned about the way in which Northern Ireland is funded—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that—and that the needs of the entire United Kingdom are taken into account. I think that the allocation is fair; it has been with us a long time and the arrangements will be similar under devolution. The measure has operated for many years, including when the hon. Gentleman was a Northern Ireland Minister. I do not think that it would be right to go further than that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Moss: I thank the Minister for that response. However, two questions remain unanswered. First, why does the clause say that the Secretary of State "may" when the word "shall" is used in the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill? Can the Minister explain why Northern Ireland is different? We should certainly firm up the wording to incorporate the word "shall" instead of the word "may". That would give a little more comfort to future Members of the Assembly and to Ministers who will take over in Northern Ireland.
I am reassured by the Minister's comments that he believes that the future distribution of moneys to Northern Ireland will be fair and will take account of Northern Ireland's unique needs. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom has the pressure of law and order and terrorism on its budget. I hope that that is a thing of the past, but nothing on the horizon suggests that expenditure in that area will diminish in the short term.
Perhaps the issue will be revisited in another place, but I think that we should give Assembly Members and the ministerial team further assurances that Northern Ireland's unique needs will not be left to the whim of a Secretary of State but be set down in statute. That would give them the firm reassurance that I am sure that they seek. On the basis of the Minister's response, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Murphy: I realise that the hon. Gentleman intends to withdraw the amendment, but he may be interested in my response to his two questions. First, he referred to the use of the word "may" in the clause. That matter will be considered as a consequence of our re-examination of clause 45. As he knows, the issues to which he referred are transferred matters and do not include the law and order budget. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

FINANCIAL ACTS OF THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 28, page 24, line 38, at end insert 'or'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 24, line 39, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 40 and insert—
'(2A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and any Order in Council made under the provisions of this Act, the Assembly shall neither impose nor vary taxes.'
No. 30, in page 24, line 43, leave out from 'appropriated' to end of line 1 on page 25.

Mr. Moss: Clause 50 deals with the Assembly's financial powers. Tax-raising powers in general are defined as excepted matters and are to be found in paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to the Bill. They include taxes levied across the entire United Kingdom and any existing taxes in Northern Ireland. The list includes inheritance tax, stamp duty, general betting duty, pool betting duty, duty on gaming machine licences and duty on vehicle licences. From a reading of clause 50(1), which states:
in pursuance of a recommendation which…is made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel; and…is signified to the Assembly by him or on his behalf',
it would seem that the Assembly could pass a vote
which imposes or increases a tax".
That is in subsection (2)(d). In addition, under subsection (3), powers are given to the Assembly to impose or increase a tax, as long as there is cross-community support. It is not clear from the Bill, however, which tax or taxes that applies to—presumably, any taxes outside the list that I enumerated.
Those tax-raising powers seem to be new powers given to the Assembly, but the Minister may correct me. I found identical provisions in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, in terms of the definition of taxes under excepted matters. Where do tax-raising powers appear in the Belfast agreement? I could not find them. No doubt, this is one of the necessary additions to that agreement about which we spoke earlier.
Our amendments would remove the powers of the Assembly to raise taxes. Even if the power remains on the statute, it is vital that the taxes referred to in the Bill are clearly and unequivocally defined.

Mr. Öpik: The issue arose in regard to Wales. One of our biggest objections to the plans for the Welsh Assembly was it would not have tax-varying powers. I should be delighted if the Northern Ireland Assembly were given tax-varying powers, not least because, if there were cross-community support for varying a tax, that would imply that there was good reason to do so, but most of all because the most powerful indication of an

autonomous decision-making Assembly is its ability to vary tax. That is one of the best aspects of the Scottish proposals, and one of the deficiencies in the Welsh ones.
I look forward to the Minister's comments. I cannot support the Conservative amendment on this occasion.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I have much sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) about the misleading nature of the clause. I understand that, for various technical and legal reasons, it would be difficult to amend the clause. However, it must be read in conjunction with schedule 2, which makes it clear that the clause does not refer to general tax-raising powers, about which the hon. Gentleman was troubled.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke about tax-varying powers. Those were not part of the agreement and were not finalised. I have subsequently consulted parties in Northern Ireland, who are generally of the view that there should not be such powers.
The clause refers to the regional rate in Northern Ireland, which was set up by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and which is used to discharge many functions in Northern Ireland that are normally discharged by local authorities in England and Wales. The Assembly will retain the right to raise the regional rate, but there are no plans in the Bill for a general tax-levying, tax-raising or tax-varying power. Consequently, I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Moss: Perhaps the Minister and his civil service draftsmen will look again at the wording of the Bill. It might be helpful to define the tax as the general rate. That would overcome the problem quite easily. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Dowd.]

Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),

That this House, at its rising on Friday 31st July, do adjourn till Monday 19th October.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Friday 31st July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Orders of the Day — Night Flights (Windsor)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Michael Trend: The House will know from earlier debates my concern that Heathrow, while being a great asset to the country as a whole and to the south-east in particular, should be a good and responsible neighbour to those communities that surround it. Both west London and east Berkshire suffer greatly from the airport's environmental pollution, especially in terms of noise. The Government are consulting on the matter, and that exercise will take a significant move forward while the House is in recess.
I am very grateful to be able to raise my concerns before the House rises, and before one proposal in particular develops momentum and we are told that we had left it too late to object. The particular proposal is that there might be a change in runway preferential use at night. I shall return to that later.
My speech may seem complex, but it is necessarily so. It is not an emotional public relations exercise, but an attempt to convince the Minister and the House that we in Windsor face increased hazards to our health and well-being. First, however, I need to make a series of general but connected points.
The Minister for Transport in London will know that I have long advocated a total ban on night flights at Heathrow, and that remains my position. My constituents—indeed, all those who live around the airport—are entitled to a good night's sleep untroubled by the planes thundering in overhead. Other countries and other airports simply do not allow their people to be subjected to such abuse. It is a matter of priorities, and mine is the people in my constituency. The Government' s priority should be the people who live all round the area, and not the carriers and the minuscule number of passengers who land at night.
This afternoon, I want to address what can and should be done in the period, which I hope will be brief, before the Government become persuaded of a total ban on night flights. First, the Government need to be absolutely clear that the main problem nowadays with Heathrow, for the great majority of those troubled by aircraft noise, comes from landings, not from take-offs. This in some measure reflects past successes in curbing take-off noise, and that should be recognised. However, I still find people, even those who are closely associated with the airport, who do not realise that the debate has moved on. Nowadays, landings are the big problem, especially for Windsor and the surrounding area.
Secondly, there is much misunderstanding about the effects of the process of runway alternation at Heathrow. That is also important from Windsor's point of view. I know that the Minister understands how these things work very well, but, for the benefit of those who may not, I should explain that, at any given moment, planes take off and land in the same direction. The direction of plane movement is determined by the direction of the wind. Planes both take off and land into the wind.
Heathrow has two main runways, so when planes are taking off to the west on, say, the southern runway, they land to the west on the northern runway. At regular

intervals, while the movement of planes remains to the west, landings switch from one runway to the other, so that planes take off on the northern runway and land on the southern. This affords the residents of west London relief from the noise of landing aircraft. I am pleased for them that they get this relief.
However, the same is not true when the movement of flights is towards the east. That is because of the so-called "Cranford agreement," which means that planes cannot take off on the northern runway towards the east—over Cranford.
When I last brought this matter to the attention of the House, I was able to demonstrate that there is in fact no such agreement. The Minister at the time was Steven Norris, and he had notice that I was going to raise the matter. His officials no doubt searched the former Department of Transport from the attic to the basement, and no agreement was found. The Minister told the House that there was no such agreement.
Before the debate, I alerted the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen)—who represents Cranford—that I would mention the matter again today. Now is not the time to go into it in great detail, but I hope to return to the arrangement—which I take to be a political fix from the past—at some later time.
The so-called Cranford agreement means that, as planes cannot take off on the northern runway towards the east, they have to use the southern runway all the time. That in turn means that all planes landing from the west have to land on the northern runway, the approach to which lines up precisely over Windsor. When aircraft movement is to the east, the planes come in low and noisy over Windsor, Datchett, Horton and other communities in my constituency and others.
Once we have understood that, we can dispel the misunderstanding that east Berkshire somehow has it easy because fewer planes land from the west than land from over London. Roughly 30 per cent. of daytime arrivals come in over Windsor, with 70 per cent. landing over west London. However, because there is no runway alternation, when the planes are landing to the east, the whole 30 per cent. of the landings take place over Windsor. When the wind changes direction and the plans land from over London, no one area is affected for the full 70 per cent. of the time.
Due to alternation, two communities in west London are affected roughly 35 per cent. of the time each. The difference between landing from the east and west is not really 70:30 per cent. If one thinks of the three communities involved—two on one side of the airport and on one the other—the difference is really 35:35:30 per cent. Far from being the lucky partner, Windsor's position is closely comparable to that of the two areas in west London also affected by landing noise.
I come to my third point. I have told the House before that Windsor has done badly from the modern electronic landing system at Heathrow, which now brings in planes with monotonous precision right over our heads—although I recognise that there is a safety gain. I also recognise that, in general, marginal improvements are made year on year in reducing aircraft noise. Those of us who follow these matters closely are grateful for that—even for minor incremental improvements. However, such benefits as may have come to Windsor in the past 10 years have been more than offset by the modern inflexible landing system which I have described.
The fourth point is that we in east Berkshire know without looking out of the window or at a weather vane when we are in for it—by that, I mean when the plans will come crashing in over our heads. In summer and winter, the same weather system that, happily, drives us out of doors infuriatingly drives the planes right over our heads. The west winds bring clouds and rain, but when the wind is in the east, the weather is usually fine and clear. On hot summer evenings—when people like to sit in their gardens or sleep with their windows wide open—and on those marvellous, clear, crisp winter days when people wish to get out of their houses and enjoy a respite from the winter gloom, we in east Berkshire get the full landing treatment, thanks to Heathrow.
I hope that I have shown that the problems created by aircraft landing over east Berkshire are severe, and deserve to be better understood and recognised. That brings me to the pressing matter of runway preferential use at night. As part of their consultation exercise, the Government put forward the idea that current runway preferential use could be reconsidered. British Airways recently put out a press release, stating that there
should be a review of runway preferential use at night
and that that
should test the benefits and feasibility of a switch to 'easterly preference'.
I find such a proposal completely unacceptable.
I hope that the Government will not be influenced by BA, or by others, to consider a change in preferences. Windsor is not the lucky partner in daytime landing—it experiences roughly the same misery from landing noise as any other community. That has become worse due to the modern technology used for landings, and it is always bad when the weather is at its best.
Windsor's position would become substantially worse if night preferences were changed. The percentages of flights landing from the east and west at night differ from the daytime figures, largely because of a natural difference in ambient wind levels. Recent figures from the Department show that, between 4 am and 6 am, there is a five-knot westerly preference, which means that the split is roughly 85 per cent. of flights landing over London and 15 per cent. over Windsor. Thankfully, that is better than the daytime figures.
The Government, however, are considering options on having no preference or a five-knot easterly preference for those hours. If the no-preference option came in, my constituents would be subjected to an increase from 15 to 40 per cent. of all night flights. With a five-knot easterly preference, the current 15 per cent. would increase to 80 per cent. or more.
We are told that only 16 flights are permitted to land between 4 am and 6 am, but I fear that the figure is often higher. The Minister will understand that I am using a rough and ready calculus, but, accepting the figure of 15 per cent. for the moment, under the present arrangement, two and a half planes-worth would land over Windsor in those two hours, when we should all be asleep. That would go up to six and a half planes-worth if there was no preference, or to 13 planes a night under the easterly preference. The Minister should think about what that would mean for my constituents.
I cannot vouch for the figures being absolutely precise, but hon. Members should imagine what it would be like if my constituents were woken roughly half a dozen or a dozen times a night instead of twice. It would be monstrous. The present position does not suit anyone around Heathrow, but there is a rough balance of misery between west London and east Berkshire.

Kate Hoey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that night flights do not affect only the people in his area, but are a huge issue in other parts of London, especially south and south-west London, where large public meetings have been held about this problem? Unless there is real danger, flights should not be allowed to land during the night.

Mr. Trend: I agree entirely—I favour a total ban on night flights. There is a balance of misery between people on my side and the hon. Lady's side of the airport, and both constituencies experience noise problems because we are so close to it, but it would be dangerous and difficult for my constituents if the balance were upset. A switch in night flight preferences would throw the balance out most appallingly; even a rise to 40 per cent. of night flights would bring uproar from the people of Windsor, and I would happily lead them.
Many other communities on our side of the airport would also be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has asked me to associate her with the views that I am expressing. I know how concerned she is for the interests of her constituents who are affected by aircraft noise. I have also been asked to register the great concern of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and willingly do so. She has told me that any change in night landing preferences would be utterly unacceptable.
I spent some time in the Department, at a more modest level than the Minister, as a parliamentary private secretary at the old Department of Transport. One lesson I learned was that the Government get no credit for improving noise conditions, whether in the air or on the roads. But when noise gets worse, the Government get it in the neck. If the noise gets substantially worse in east Berkshire as a result of any change in preferences, the Minister will have a serious problem on her hands.
The balance of misery is a delicate one. There is nothing to be gained from destroying it, but much to lose. I accept that the airport works hard to improve conditions generally around Heathrow, and the Government can claim that there has been progressive improvement without creating such a dramatic disturbance as would follow a change in night preferences.
The MPs of east Berkshire do not want a change in preference. Our constituents would not tolerate it. Neither do we want to have the no-preference option and then be told that we were lucky not to have had easterly preferences imposed on us. The present position is bad enough, and I implore the Minister not to make it worse. To change night preferences would be unreasonable and unjust.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on securing the debate, and on the persistence


and dedication that he has brought to this topic over the many years that he has given such doughty service to the House and to his constituents. I thank him for his generosity in allowing an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and for assuring the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) share his concerns, not least on the issue of runway preferential use and its alteration.
The issue is noise disturbance suffered not only by the constituents of the hon. Member for Windsor, but by the many thousands, possibly millions, of people who live in and around London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said.
As the House will be aware, a preliminary consultation paper on night restrictions on aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted was issued on 27 February. That consultation invited views on all aspects of the present regime, and closed on 29 May. We are now considering all the responses, and will take them into account in drawing up proposals for the next night restrictions regime. We hope to publish those proposals by the end of September. There will be a further consultation before the decisions on the next night restrictions regime for the three airports are taken.
The present night restrictions regime for those airports was established with effect from 24 October 1993. It proved to be contentious, and was subject to lengthy judicial review proceedings. Litigation in the United Kingdom courts came to an end in 1996, but a case is now before the European Court of Human Rights. I am sure that the House will accept that it would be improper for me to comment on that.
The present night restrictions specify a night period of 11 pm to 7 am during which the noisiest types of aircraft may not be scheduled to land or take off. In addition, from 11.30 pm to 6 am—the night quota period—aircraft movements are restricted by a movements limit and a noise quota, which are both set for a season. The noise quota is a supplementary measure designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. Aircraft count against the noise quota according to their noise "quota count" classification.
The quota count system is based on aircraft noise certification data. Aircraft are classified separately for landing and taking off by reference to data that are collected according to internationally agreed conditions and standards. The movements limits and noise quotas are set for the season as a whole; they are not subdivided across the hours of the night or between types of services, and airlines may operate services as they wish within the limits and quota available.
There are two seasons: the summer season—which equates to the period of British summer time as fixed by the Summer Time Act 1972—and the winter season, which is the rest of the year. Each summer season is about seven months long, and each winter season approximately five months. At Heathrow, last winter there were 2,446 movements which counted against the night movements limit of 2,550. In noise quota terms, they amounted to 3,858.5—a somewhat bizarre statistic—against the noise quota of 5,000.
In the 1997 summer season, there were 2,755 movements which counted against the movements limit of 3,250, amounting to 4,274.5 against the noise quota of

7,000. There were also some movements by aircraft that are exempt from the restrictions, because they are so small and quiet, some given dispensations in circumstances permitted under the present arrangements, and some emergencies, which are automatically exempted from the night restrictions.
Of more immediate relevance to the hon. Gentleman is the trial of runway alternation at night for landing aircraft that has been carried out by Heathrow Airport Ltd. at the request of the airport consultative committee. The results were presented to the consultative committee in April, but no formal recommendation has yet been made to the Department. The approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions would be required before runway alternation at night could be extended into the night period on a permanent basis, and may require additional consultation by the Department. We intend to take the subject forward in our second stage consultation paper on night restrictions.
As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a westerly preference has been operated at Heathrow since 1962, with aircraft operating towards the west when there is a light easterly tailwind. The purpose is to reduce noise disturbance from departing aircraft taking off over the more densely populated areas to the east of the airport. It also means that landings over Windsor are reduced.
In 1996, work commissioned by the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee confirmed that, during the day, there remains an overall environmental benefit from continued use of a westerly preference. However, at night, because almost all flights at Heathrow are arrivals in the early morning, the requirement to operate a westerly preference means that those aircraft are being routed over the more densely populated area of London than is strictly necessary, and it is right that it should be reviewed.

Mr. John McDonnell: My hon. Friend will be aware that, as Heathrow is in my constituency, the proximity of many of my constituents to Heathrow airport means that alternation is irrelevant. During the period of disturbance between 4 and 6 am every night, the noise is of such intensity that their sleep is disturbed and their entire environment is ruined. That is why I support the call by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) for a total night ban, which is the only way to resolve the matter, as has been demonstrated in the report published this week by HACAN—the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise.

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend has highlighted a point that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Windsor and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall—that noise disturbance from aircraft is not limited to those who live particularly near the three airports in question, albeit I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's constituency is very close to Heathrow. The issue of bans was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. There has never been a ban on night flights, although it has been discussed in the past.
Initial analysis of the 4 am to 6 am period by my Department, and recently reported to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee, shows that, with the current arrangement of a westerly preference, the airport operates on westerlies for about 87 per cent. of the time.


With no preference, westerly operations would account for about 60 per cent. of the time on average—easterly operations accounting for the other 40 per cent.—and with an easterly preference operated, the proportion of easterly operations would rise to about 84 per cent. in the 4 am to 6 am period.
I stress that we have not taken a view on the merits or otherwise of the different possible runway preferences, and no decisions have been reached. There will be full public consultation. More work is needed, particularly on the noise impact of the various options on local communities. We also intend to invite views on modifying the operation of westerly preference at Heathrow at night in the second-stage paper of the current night restrictions consultation.

Mr. Trend: The Minister referred to trials in which planes are brought in at night from the west, of which I was aware. I have spoken about the need for a balance, and about hon. Members receiving no thanks for improving the balance but receiving considerable odium if it gets worse.
If the airport went to an easterly preference, even with alternation allowing both runways to land planes from the west because of low traffic, there would, instead of 80 per cent. landing over Windsor—a rise from the current 15 per cent.—be 40 per cent. landing over Windsor, which is 25 per cent. more than now, and 40 per cent. landing over St. Leonard's Hill to the south of Windsor, which currently experiences no substantial night disturbance. That would mean two angry communities. I implore the Minister to consider the balance of misery. It is unsatisfactory at present, but to disturb it would cause more trouble.

Ms Jackson: I can only repeat what I have said already. There has been no formal presentation to the Department on those trials, so we are not able to take a view. There is no possibility of any kind of change in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred without the most thorough public consultation.
We shall invite views on the possibility of modifying the operation of westerly preference in the second-stage paper of the current night restrictions consultation. The hon. Gentleman commented on British Airways' recent announcement in a press release on night-time operations that it supported a review of runway preferential use at night—not alternation—with a clear implication that it favoured an easterly preference. BA is entitled to its views, but we shall consult on the second night restrictions paper, which is due out the end of September.
The hon. Gentleman referred to aircraft landing at Heathrow in the very early morning, from about 4.30 am onwards. That reference is understandable, as such flights constitute the majority of night flights, at present, at Heathrow. They fly across Windsor when the wind is from the east, and they fly across central London when the wind is from the west. I am aware of complaints from both sides of the airport, as well as from all shades of the political spectrum.
The whole pattern of scheduling movements, particularly flights from the Asia-Pacific region, is a significant factor in the present pattern of early morning arrivals. The night curfew at Hong Kong Kai Tak contributed to that, but it was far from the only reason. We do not expect the pattern of movements to change radically, now that the new airport at Chep Lap Kok has opened.
There are very few departures at Heathrow during the night quota period, but some flights take off before our restrictions come into force, and land at sensitive times at other international airports. Any change to night restrictions at London airports that would have significant effects on intercontinental scheduling might have knock-on implications for some of our daytime traffic. We have specifically invited comments on that in our preliminary consultation paper on night restrictions.
We fully accept that aircraft noise, both by night and by day, is a contentious subject. Unfortunately, despite the great improvements made over the past 30 years, it is likely to remain so.
As I announced on 27 February, we are commissioning further research, initially on a trial basis, into the impact of aircraft noise at night. We are particularly interested in the scope for researching sleep prevention—that is, delay in getting to sleep at night—and the difficulties of not being able to get back to sleep again after being awakened in the early morning, However, we must not underestimate the complexities of such research, or the length of time that it may take.
It must also be acknowledged, as the hon. Member for Windsor has stated, that Heathrow airport is a major national asset. It occupies a position of central importance in international trade and communication in Europe, and in the UK's economy.
Heathrow is the busiest airport in Europe, and the busiest international airport in the world. In 1997, it handled nearly 58 million passengers, with 35 per cent. using the airport as an interchange point. It is used by more than 90 airlines, serving 180 destinations world wide. It is the UK's largest port in terms of value of trade handled, and it provides 56,000 direct jobs and a further 26,000 indirectly in support services: jobs that benefit people who live around the airport, as well as contributing to the prosperity of the country as a whole.
Successive Governments have consistently recognised the need to ensure that people who live near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are not exposed to excessive levels of aircraft at night. This Government equally recognise that need. We believe that it is both right and necessary to set restrictions on night flights at those airports, and, in doing so, to preserve a balance between environmental and aviation interests.
I thank the hon. Member for Windsor for giving us the opportunity to consider these issues and to help us, in conjunction with all the responses that we have received to the preliminary consultation, to determine the formal proposals that we shall put to consultation in the autumn.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Two o'clock.